3 ms·

No, those two categories are basically the same. Middle class people with solid 9-5 jobs and not many other commitments. Some portion of these people create stu

No, those two categories are basically the same. Middle class people with solid 9-5 jobs and not many other commitments. Some portion of these people create stuff in their free time. The people I'm talking about are either too poor to follow their passions and work for free, or have the time but have decided to channel their passion into something that might make them money. Basically, I have a problem with this quote: "Is content that needs to be supported really that valuable? Might the world be a better place without it?" The idea that anybody who publishes anything of value would be willing and able to do it for free is just obviously wrong. The world would not be a better place if independent content were only created by a tiny portion of humanity.

CuriouslyC 11y ago
Just because you publish content for free doesn't mean that you don't derive value from it. By establishing yourself as an expert you can (just off the top of my head): - create a market for yourself as a consultant/instructor/offer seminars in that area - charge businesses to feature reviews of their goods and services - sell books/prints/tshirts/(insert relevant merch for type of content here) None of these avenues are viable for content mills. I stand by my original point that if content was free and everyone monetized their expertise this way we'd have a much better internet.
- burkaman 11y ago
  That's a great list of things that poor people, people with families, people with busy lives for any reason can't do. You need to first establish yourself as an expert, for free, with all of your free time. Regardless, this is all possible right now. "if content was free"? Content can be free, there's lots of it. Removing every way for non-experts to make money would only hurt people, it wouldn't help anyone. It wouldn't make it any easier to publish stuff for free.
  - pessimizer 11y ago
    What's the benefit for society that poor people have the ability to marginally add to their income by writing words that they don't care if anybody reads? Generally, the reason I say things to people is that I want them to hear what I'm saying, not because every time I can sneak in an endorsement of a product (that I haven't even selected), I get a nickel. I can want them to hear because I want to improve their lives, because I want to appeal to their consciences, because I'm an exhibitionist, because I want to coordinate activities with them, or even because I want them to give me money (not for a long time, and I'm sure my parents are happy about that.) How did the last become the only one that is legitimate, and the only one that it considered a realistic source of motivation for providing the public with a range of things that they want to see or hear? It's weird that the preservation of purposeless words is a concern of people. I would expect the people who think that we need a financial motivation to express themselves would largely conduct themselves through life silently.
- pessimizer 11y ago
  And the greatest value is that you wanted people to hear what you had to say about something, and some did.

CuriouslyC 11y ago

Just because you publish content for free doesn't mean that you don't derive value from it. By establishing yourself as an expert you can (just off the top of my head): - create a market for yourself as a consultant/instructor/offer seminars in that area - charge businesses to feature reviews of their goods and services - sell books/prints/tshirts/(insert relevant merch for type of content here) None of these avenues are viable for content mills. I stand by my original point that if content was free and everyone monetized their expertise this way we'd have a much better internet.

burkaman 11y ago
That's a great list of things that poor people, people with families, people with busy lives for any reason can't do. You need to first establish yourself as an expert, for free, with all of your free time. Regardless, this is all possible right now. "if content was free"? Content can be free, there's lots of it. Removing every way for non-experts to make money would only hurt people, it wouldn't help anyone. It wouldn't make it any easier to publish stuff for free.
- pessimizer 11y ago
  What's the benefit for society that poor people have the ability to marginally add to their income by writing words that they don't care if anybody reads? Generally, the reason I say things to people is that I want them to hear what I'm saying, not because every time I can sneak in an endorsement of a product (that I haven't even selected), I get a nickel. I can want them to hear because I want to improve their lives, because I want to appeal to their consciences, because I'm an exhibitionist, because I want to coordinate activities with them, or even because I want them to give me money (not for a long time, and I'm sure my parents are happy about that.) How did the last become the only one that is legitimate, and the only one that it considered a realistic source of motivation for providing the public with a range of things that they want to see or hear? It's weird that the preservation of purposeless words is a concern of people. I would expect the people who think that we need a financial motivation to express themselves would largely conduct themselves through life silently.
pessimizer 11y ago
And the greatest value is that you wanted people to hear what you had to say about something, and some did.