3 ms·

"I see my giving my attention as a paramount expression of freedom" The thing is that the 5 secs you spent looking at an ad when you went to youtube to search f

by xlayn 11y ago

"I see my giving my attention as a paramount expression of freedom" The thing is that the 5 secs you spent looking at an ad when you went to youtube to search for XYZ was not what you wanted but the price you paid for the free video service (because you didn't pay for XYZ video creation, nor for youtube infrastructure that serves that video, nor for google service behind to perform the search). "free software" -as in the use of the term "free" I might ask someone else to complete but I think is not referred to the cost of producing or delivering it to you but the access to the underlying source code and the ability to change it.

jsprogrammer 11y ago
>"free software" -as in the use of the term "free" I might ask someone else to complete but I think is not referred to the cost of producing or delivering it to you but the access to the underlying source code and the ability to change it. It can refer to both and more. >The thing is that the 5 secs you spent looking at an ad when you went to youtube to search for XYZ was not what you wanted but the price you paid for the free video service (because you didn't pay for XYZ video creation, nor for youtube infrastructure that serves that video, nor for google service behind to perform the search). This is either post hoc rationalization or bullshit ad marketer speak. You cannot claim, "oh, you watched the ad? you just paid for it!", unless a contract was in place before the ad was watched. You are describing something more akin to exploitation.
cgio 11y ago
I am not questioning the existence of monetisation models for things. That's why we have an economy. What I question is generalising the existence of monetisation models to say that there can be no free goods, especially when this is somehow argued with reference to natural laws and implying that free goods is an absurd or non-feasible concept. If we are to look into examples, what would you say with regards to reading Wikipedia, or Standord encyclopedia of philosophy. Are these ad-free channels defying a physical law?
- eevilspock 11y ago
  There is no free lunch.

by xlayn 11y ago

jsprogrammer 11y ago

>"free software" -as in the use of the term "free" I might ask someone else to complete but I think is not referred to the cost of producing or delivering it to you but the access to the underlying source code and the ability to change it. It can refer to both and more. >The thing is that the 5 secs you spent looking at an ad when you went to youtube to search for XYZ was not what you wanted but the price you paid for the free video service (because you didn't pay for XYZ video creation, nor for youtube infrastructure that serves that video, nor for google service behind to perform the search). This is either post hoc rationalization or bullshit ad marketer speak. You cannot claim, "oh, you watched the ad? you just paid for it!", unless a contract was in place before the ad was watched. You are describing something more akin to exploitation.

cgio 11y ago

I am not questioning the existence of monetisation models for things. That's why we have an economy. What I question is generalising the existence of monetisation models to say that there can be no free goods, especially when this is somehow argued with reference to natural laws and implying that free goods is an absurd or non-feasible concept. If we are to look into examples, what would you say with regards to reading Wikipedia, or Standord encyclopedia of philosophy. Are these ad-free channels defying a physical law?

eevilspock 11y ago
There is no free lunch.