5 ms·

> I don't believe most people think content creator's shouldn't get paid. Of course not. For most, it's a clear case of cognitive dissonance. People say things

by johnfn 10y ago

> I don't believe most people think content creator's shouldn't get paid. Of course not. For most, it's a clear case of cognitive dissonance. People say things like torrenting should be legal because information wants to be free and copying is different than stealing and you know all the rest. Then you ask them if content creators should get paid and they say of course. Then you ask them how, and you get blank stares. They haven't thought that far. Maybe they say "it's not my job to figure it out, the content creators should do that." Interesting. Have you considered the fact that maybe it's not as simple as it seems? That maybe a single indie content creator like you or me will very poissbly NOT be able to solve this incredibly difficult problem that is LITERALLY DESTROYING ENTIRE INDUSTRIES AS WE STAND DEBATING WHETHER IT'S POSSIBLE? That, for example, journalism has got their smartest minds working on it, and nothing workable is popping out? And so god help an indie like me who doesn't have a fraction of a fraction of the clout of, say, the WSJ? I mean, your Louis C. K. example is fine, but I'm sure you realize that not everyone in the world is Louis CK. That not everyone has his reach and his reputation, and those are both huge contributing factors to the success of his campaign?

mbrock 10y ago
Torrenting should be legal because criminalizing decentralized network technology fucks up the internet and requires the government to spy on all traffic. This kind of argument is quite similar to why drugs should be legal even if their effects are bad -- the effects of prohibition are simply worse, and immoral. "Information wants to be free" is not a crazy hippie idea, it's just the fact that it's extremely difficult (or basically tyrannical) to stop information from flowing once you have internet. Should content creators be paid? They should be paid whatever they convince someone to pay them. Indeed it's not my job to figure it out. Maybe selling consumer download access to digital audio is not a viable business model in the presence of hard-to-stop piracy; well then, sell something else.
- s73ver 10y ago
  If it's not your job to figure it out, why do you feel entitled to their content without paying?
  - mbrock 10y ago
    That's an interesting question to ask the vast hordes of people around the world who partake in torrents -- applied ethics research. When I used to torrent stuff, it was mostly because I was a kid with no money to spend. I'm glad my family wasn't sued for a hundred thousand dollars or whatever!
  - cr0sh 10y ago
    One could also ask "why do you feel entitled to their money for the content"? Honestly, some of the best content I have ever gotten was (in essence) "gifted" to me by the creator; whether as a free download, or perhaps directly given to me in some fashion. I enjoyed it so much so, that I felt compelled to gift them a monetary amount back, along with some kind words of thanks and encouragement for them to continue creating. I much prefer this kind of reciprocal exchange, than what is currently the default case. Certainly, there are going to be those who take the gift, and never give back. But they likely would have done that anyhow, regardless of the system in place, as we see today (outside of draconian DRM schemes and whatnot - for the majority of that, I've just simply not purchased those items, even though I do want them - are they somehow still entitled to my money?)
    - s73ver 10y ago
      "One could also ask "why do you feel entitled to their money for the content"?" No, you absolutely could not. The content is the result of their hard work. You could no more say that than I could say that I'm entitled to having you paint my house without paying you. "Honestly, some of the best content I have ever gotten was (in essence) "gifted" to me by the creator; whether as a free download, or perhaps directly given to me in some fashion. I enjoyed it so much so, that I felt compelled to gift them a monetary amount back, along with some kind words of thanks and encouragement for them to continue creating." That is the creator's choice to do that. But not every creator wants to do that. In those cases, you should not take their hard work without paying for it. "I've just simply not purchased those items, even though I do want them - are they somehow still entitled to my money?" No, but no one is saying that. In fact, people are saying that is the proper way to go. Yet, many here are saying that they are still entitled to the work despite not paying for it. I find it extremely disingenuous that you would try to say that, though.
- anigbrowl 10y ago
  'torrenting should be legal but content creators should work in the free market, eh? I sincerely hope someone invents a protocol that will allow me to torrent a few cents out of your bank account every day. OK, that will be inconvenient for you but hey, that's not my problem. Money is just a social construct anyway so it's not like your loss actually matters in the overall scheme of things.
  - mbrock 10y ago
    If money worked like MP3 files, being infinitely copyable in a non-zero sum way, it would indeed be hard to stop people from copying "my" money. Since that's not how it works, banks already successfully protect our accounts. These problems are qualitatively very different.
    - anigbrowl 10y ago
      Surely you are aware that money is not grounded in physical objects but in notional promises and contractual relations. I certainly support the use of any software that enriches me at your expense, since you seem willing to do the same to me. The flaw in your argument is that you think because mp3 files are copyable that technical reality obviates any moral right of content creator in deciding who they sell to and under what conditions. Since you don't think that content creators should be able to contractually or legally bind people from making copies, why should I care about your equally notional property interest? If you feel somehow diminished by my helping myself to your property, well just make more and sell it or something. It's not my problem.
      - mbrock 10y ago
        I think that content creators simply are not able to prevent copying. If I have a folder of mp3s on my computer and my friend asks for a copy, it's so easy for me to say yes and just copy the files, instead of saying "sorry, this material is copyrighted, and I must concede the moral rights of the content creator and deny your wish." If a content creator wishes to stop this kind of heinous immoral piracy, how will they go about? Well, putting spyware and rootkits onto music CDs is a good start, right? Then move on to combating the open internet.
pjc50 10y ago
> LITERALLY DESTROYING ENTIRE INDUSTRIES AS WE STAND HOME TAPING IS KILLING MUSIC! This is why pro-copyright arguments get downvoted, we've heard the hyperbole for decades and got fed up with it. Journalism has a lot of problems, but I don't think actual copyright infringement is at the root of them, it's more a combination of unbundling classified ads etc. and the nasty realisation that lots of the public doesn't actually want accurate news so much as confirmation of their prejudices.
- johnfn 10y ago
  You've confused my argument. I'm not trying to be rude, but maybe you should read it again? Let me see if I can explain it better. First, the fact that people refuse to pay for journalism online is very truly killing journalism online. There was nothing hyperbolic about what I said in GP, and there's nothing hyperbolic about this statement now. This is, I think, indisputable. What I'm arguing is that people pervasively and stubbornly refuse to pay for things online, but then then turn around and say "content creators should solve the problem that I don't want to pay for things online." It doesn't cross their mind that this is a massive problem that is crushing entire industries, and Joe "I have an online indie band" Schmoe might not be able to reconcile it himself.
  - stonith 10y ago
    If the reputable publishers banded together and created a single platform that I paid for, where my payment was weighted towards the sites that I actually read articles from, then maybe they wouldn't be in so much trouble. Instead they each create their own platform and ask for a price that simply doesn't represent the value they provide, then bitch that nobody's taking them up on the offer. Spotify works because they have large enough catalogues that I don't need to also have an Apple Music and a Google Play Music subscription, whereas the New York Times is basically just a donation since I'm inevitably going to have to go elsewhere for other journalism even in the same categories as they report on. For the case of video, Disney + co have been attacking consumer rights for nearly a century via lobbying and as a result I don't care if they all go out of business. Fuck them for making copyright the 70+ year joke it is today.
  - 10y ago
lettergram 10y ago
I ask people regularly to pay for a service that I provide for free: https://easy-a.net/ https://easy-a.net/ The only thing I provide for paying me are some nice graphs and insight(s) (predict end of semester grades for the given student/user) if they pay me $20 / year. That's from college students... and I have plenty paying me. All the data was gathered from a FOIA request which I make publically available. The only private data is what users enter about themselves.
Dylan16807 10y ago
You're not describing cognitive dissonance. There's nothing inherently incompatible between free sharing and paid creators. It's hard, of course, but most economic issues are hard.
- johnfn 10y ago
  I'd argue that an irreconcilable world view - or at least one that you are not capable of reconciling - is cognitive dissonance. If you CAN reconcile it, you don't have congnitive dissonance. But most people don't get that far.
  - Dylan16807 10y ago
    If your standard of avoiding cognitive dissonance requires being an economist, it's too high. It's enough to have a reasonable justification to say that it can be reconciled. There's no need to force the person to do that reconciliation.
    - johnfn 10y ago
      What I'm saying is that in some cases I do believe it to be irreconcileable.
      - Dylan16807 10y ago
        Irreconcilable even by a dictator-for-a-day? As far as I'm concerned the idea of a tax that funds content creation is a pretty good existence proof of reconciling those two ideas.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
TheOtherHobbes 10y ago
I have absolutely no problem with paying content creators. Torrenting makes me very uneasy when it's distributing cracks and work by small scale creatives who will be - sometimes have been - forced to give up because of piracy. That's not a win. It simply isn't. No matter how you look at it or rationalise it, there is no way to make it a good thing. Unfortunately the existing corporates are also very bad at paying content creators. In fact they're criminally bad. Knowingly, deliberately, fraudulently bad. (See "Hollywood Accounting.") Torrenting could have fixed this by providing a second informal distribution channel. The big torrent sites - which were making huge amounts of money at their peak - could have fixed it by becoming the new investors and incubators of talent. They could have become the new music and film industry. They could have taken down Hollywood by offering real decentralised competition to the entire business process. Instead a load of college kids and the odd activist said "Fuck that - I want my free music and movies" and that was as far as it went. Now we're back with creatives earning less than they were before torrenting started, partly because torrenting set the bar so low it made the ridiculous streamimg deals offered by Spotify etc look a serious business proposition. The reality is that most of the rhetoric around free/open stuff is bullshit. None of it works as well as it's claimed to, and some of it is actively destructive. I really don't have a problem with alternative models of creation, contribution, and reward. But inventing new models that actually generate and reward high quality content would require dealing with reality, not just indulging in rhetoric and self-justification. There doesn't seem to be much chance of that happening any time soon.
freeflight 10y ago
>They haven't thought that far. Sorry, but that's not just a false claim it's straight up dishonest. Peter Sunde also started Flattr, the pirate party and the CCC have been trying to popularize concepts like culture coins for years, just because you don't know about these things does not mean they don't exist/nobody is thinking about better solutions. Say what you want, modern copyright-law is simply broken and needs to be rebuild from the ground up to account for our modern digitally driven economies.
- johnfn 10y ago
  It's not dishonest, it's representative of the actual situation. You don't even have to look very far: there are people IN THIS ACTUAL THREAD who admit they haven't thought about it and don't need to. I wasn't saying "literally no one has tried to think this through", I was saying "a random guy off the street has not thought this through."
  - freeflight 10y ago
    >It's not dishonest, it's representative of the actual situation. If you claim "they" don't even "think that far", while there are plenty of examples of "them" thinking further, then there's nothing representative at all about your statement. Copyright reform was, and still is, the platform the pirate party is running for all over the world. The random guy off the street also does not think about solving energy problems for the world, as such random guy off the street can be hardly a measure for anything at all.
- anigbrowl 10y ago
  Yeah, it does need to be rebuilt. but I have seen hardly anyone putting in any effort to do that, while lots and lots of people just help themselves to cultural output and excuse the resulting lack of revenue by saying 'lol copyright is broken.' Maybe next time try offering some new solutions before wrecking entire industries that you know nothing about and didn't take the time to understand, instead choosing to characterize them as part fo some monolithic Big Media that you feel OK about hating.
wfo 10y ago
You should try to present an argument against the position of your opponents in good faith, against the best version of their argument. Just because someone disagrees with you does not mean they are experiencing "cognitive dissonance". Armchair psychoanalyzing millions of people across the Internet and accusing them of some mental dysfunction because they dared to disagree with you does not paint your argument in a good light. You seem so upset about entire industries being destroyed -- last I heard industries were fine. Movies are being made and are making money. Music is proliferating everywhere and people are managing to make money. Artists are being screwed out of their money as they have been since decades before the Internet existed. Games, one of the most pirated things in the world are a huge booming industry. Journalism is not dying because of piracy -- has anyone ever pirated a newspaper or magazine? Illegal torrents of copies of the New York Times? What? Histrionics and caps lock don't particularly help your case, explain what you are talking about. It's certainly possible that the market is simply not an effective driver for artistic creation, especially in a world where art can be copy pasted trivially -- in the past, art has been mostly funded by the state or by wealthy individuals and patrons. Perhaps that model is better. It's also possible that the "cure" of locking down the Internet, mass surveillance to identify pirates, designing DRM so that machines work against their owners' interests and no longer obey the user is worse than the "disease" of piracy.
- johnfn 10y ago
  I think our first disagreement comes over the meaning of cognitive dissonance itself. I don't believe it to be a mental disorder- just that you're holding 2 conflicting ideas in your head at the same time. I'm well aware that I often do that, as so others. There's nothing horribly wrong with it, other than of course that you should realize you're doing it and stop. Maybe you could turn your statements about good faith first on me and assume that I'm not accusing everyone who disagrees with me of having a mental disorder. That would be rather extreme. :) In fact, it's rather surprising to me that you write about good faith but take my own argument in such poor faith! As for dying industries, I was referring to journalism and you are the second person to miss that so I am willing to believe I did a poor job explaining. I think I clarified well here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14107993 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14107993
ionised 10y ago
> LITERALLY DESTROYING ENTIRE INDUSTRIES AS WE STAND DEBATING WHETHER IT'S POSSIBLE? Except that's not true. Never has been. This kind of hyperbole just makes people switch off and stop listening.

by johnfn 10y ago

mbrock 10y ago

Torrenting should be legal because criminalizing decentralized network technology fucks up the internet and requires the government to spy on all traffic. This kind of argument is quite similar to why drugs should be legal even if their effects are bad -- the effects of prohibition are simply worse, and immoral. "Information wants to be free" is not a crazy hippie idea, it's just the fact that it's extremely difficult (or basically tyrannical) to stop information from flowing once you have internet. Should content creators be paid? They should be paid whatever they convince someone to pay them. Indeed it's not my job to figure it out. Maybe selling consumer download access to digital audio is not a viable business model in the presence of hard-to-stop piracy; well then, sell something else.

s73ver 10y ago
If it's not your job to figure it out, why do you feel entitled to their content without paying?
- mbrock 10y ago
  That's an interesting question to ask the vast hordes of people around the world who partake in torrents -- applied ethics research. When I used to torrent stuff, it was mostly because I was a kid with no money to spend. I'm glad my family wasn't sued for a hundred thousand dollars or whatever!
- cr0sh 10y ago
  One could also ask "why do you feel entitled to their money for the content"? Honestly, some of the best content I have ever gotten was (in essence) "gifted" to me by the creator; whether as a free download, or perhaps directly given to me in some fashion. I enjoyed it so much so, that I felt compelled to gift them a monetary amount back, along with some kind words of thanks and encouragement for them to continue creating. I much prefer this kind of reciprocal exchange, than what is currently the default case. Certainly, there are going to be those who take the gift, and never give back. But they likely would have done that anyhow, regardless of the system in place, as we see today (outside of draconian DRM schemes and whatnot - for the majority of that, I've just simply not purchased those items, even though I do want them - are they somehow still entitled to my money?)
  - s73ver 10y ago
    "One could also ask "why do you feel entitled to their money for the content"?" No, you absolutely could not. The content is the result of their hard work. You could no more say that than I could say that I'm entitled to having you paint my house without paying you. "Honestly, some of the best content I have ever gotten was (in essence) "gifted" to me by the creator; whether as a free download, or perhaps directly given to me in some fashion. I enjoyed it so much so, that I felt compelled to gift them a monetary amount back, along with some kind words of thanks and encouragement for them to continue creating." That is the creator's choice to do that. But not every creator wants to do that. In those cases, you should not take their hard work without paying for it. "I've just simply not purchased those items, even though I do want them - are they somehow still entitled to my money?" No, but no one is saying that. In fact, people are saying that is the proper way to go. Yet, many here are saying that they are still entitled to the work despite not paying for it. I find it extremely disingenuous that you would try to say that, though.
anigbrowl 10y ago
'torrenting should be legal but content creators should work in the free market, eh? I sincerely hope someone invents a protocol that will allow me to torrent a few cents out of your bank account every day. OK, that will be inconvenient for you but hey, that's not my problem. Money is just a social construct anyway so it's not like your loss actually matters in the overall scheme of things.
- mbrock 10y ago
  If money worked like MP3 files, being infinitely copyable in a non-zero sum way, it would indeed be hard to stop people from copying "my" money. Since that's not how it works, banks already successfully protect our accounts. These problems are qualitatively very different.
  - anigbrowl 10y ago
    Surely you are aware that money is not grounded in physical objects but in notional promises and contractual relations. I certainly support the use of any software that enriches me at your expense, since you seem willing to do the same to me. The flaw in your argument is that you think because mp3 files are copyable that technical reality obviates any moral right of content creator in deciding who they sell to and under what conditions. Since you don't think that content creators should be able to contractually or legally bind people from making copies, why should I care about your equally notional property interest? If you feel somehow diminished by my helping myself to your property, well just make more and sell it or something. It's not my problem.
    - mbrock 10y ago
      I think that content creators simply are not able to prevent copying. If I have a folder of mp3s on my computer and my friend asks for a copy, it's so easy for me to say yes and just copy the files, instead of saying "sorry, this material is copyrighted, and I must concede the moral rights of the content creator and deny your wish." If a content creator wishes to stop this kind of heinous immoral piracy, how will they go about? Well, putting spyware and rootkits onto music CDs is a good start, right? Then move on to combating the open internet.

pjc50 10y ago

> LITERALLY DESTROYING ENTIRE INDUSTRIES AS WE STAND HOME TAPING IS KILLING MUSIC! This is why pro-copyright arguments get downvoted, we've heard the hyperbole for decades and got fed up with it. Journalism has a lot of problems, but I don't think actual copyright infringement is at the root of them, it's more a combination of unbundling classified ads etc. and the nasty realisation that lots of the public doesn't actually want accurate news so much as confirmation of their prejudices.

johnfn 10y ago
You've confused my argument. I'm not trying to be rude, but maybe you should read it again? Let me see if I can explain it better. First, the fact that people refuse to pay for journalism online is very truly killing journalism online. There was nothing hyperbolic about what I said in GP, and there's nothing hyperbolic about this statement now. This is, I think, indisputable. What I'm arguing is that people pervasively and stubbornly refuse to pay for things online, but then then turn around and say "content creators should solve the problem that I don't want to pay for things online." It doesn't cross their mind that this is a massive problem that is crushing entire industries, and Joe "I have an online indie band" Schmoe might not be able to reconcile it himself.
- stonith 10y ago
  If the reputable publishers banded together and created a single platform that I paid for, where my payment was weighted towards the sites that I actually read articles from, then maybe they wouldn't be in so much trouble. Instead they each create their own platform and ask for a price that simply doesn't represent the value they provide, then bitch that nobody's taking them up on the offer. Spotify works because they have large enough catalogues that I don't need to also have an Apple Music and a Google Play Music subscription, whereas the New York Times is basically just a donation since I'm inevitably going to have to go elsewhere for other journalism even in the same categories as they report on. For the case of video, Disney + co have been attacking consumer rights for nearly a century via lobbying and as a result I don't care if they all go out of business. Fuck them for making copyright the 70+ year joke it is today.
- 10y ago

lettergram 10y ago

I ask people regularly to pay for a service that I provide for free: https://easy-a.net/ https://easy-a.net/ The only thing I provide for paying me are some nice graphs and insight(s) (predict end of semester grades for the given student/user) if they pay me $20 / year. That's from college students... and I have plenty paying me. All the data was gathered from a FOIA request which I make publically available. The only private data is what users enter about themselves.

Dylan16807 10y ago

You're not describing cognitive dissonance. There's nothing inherently incompatible between free sharing and paid creators. It's hard, of course, but most economic issues are hard.

johnfn 10y ago
I'd argue that an irreconcilable world view - or at least one that you are not capable of reconciling - is cognitive dissonance. If you CAN reconcile it, you don't have congnitive dissonance. But most people don't get that far.
- Dylan16807 10y ago
  If your standard of avoiding cognitive dissonance requires being an economist, it's too high. It's enough to have a reasonable justification to say that it can be reconciled. There's no need to force the person to do that reconciliation.
  - johnfn 10y ago
    What I'm saying is that in some cases I do believe it to be irreconcileable.
    - Dylan16807 10y ago
      Irreconcilable even by a dictator-for-a-day? As far as I'm concerned the idea of a tax that funds content creation is a pretty good existence proof of reconciling those two ideas.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

TheOtherHobbes 10y ago

I have absolutely no problem with paying content creators. Torrenting makes me very uneasy when it's distributing cracks and work by small scale creatives who will be - sometimes have been - forced to give up because of piracy. That's not a win. It simply isn't. No matter how you look at it or rationalise it, there is no way to make it a good thing. Unfortunately the existing corporates are also very bad at paying content creators. In fact they're criminally bad. Knowingly, deliberately, fraudulently bad. (See "Hollywood Accounting.") Torrenting could have fixed this by providing a second informal distribution channel. The big torrent sites - which were making huge amounts of money at their peak - could have fixed it by becoming the new investors and incubators of talent. They could have become the new music and film industry. They could have taken down Hollywood by offering real decentralised competition to the entire business process. Instead a load of college kids and the odd activist said "Fuck that - I want my free music and movies" and that was as far as it went. Now we're back with creatives earning less than they were before torrenting started, partly because torrenting set the bar so low it made the ridiculous streamimg deals offered by Spotify etc look a serious business proposition. The reality is that most of the rhetoric around free/open stuff is bullshit. None of it works as well as it's claimed to, and some of it is actively destructive. I really don't have a problem with alternative models of creation, contribution, and reward. But inventing new models that actually generate and reward high quality content would require dealing with reality, not just indulging in rhetoric and self-justification. There doesn't seem to be much chance of that happening any time soon.

freeflight 10y ago

>They haven't thought that far. Sorry, but that's not just a false claim it's straight up dishonest. Peter Sunde also started Flattr, the pirate party and the CCC have been trying to popularize concepts like culture coins for years, just because you don't know about these things does not mean they don't exist/nobody is thinking about better solutions. Say what you want, modern copyright-law is simply broken and needs to be rebuild from the ground up to account for our modern digitally driven economies.

johnfn 10y ago
It's not dishonest, it's representative of the actual situation. You don't even have to look very far: there are people IN THIS ACTUAL THREAD who admit they haven't thought about it and don't need to. I wasn't saying "literally no one has tried to think this through", I was saying "a random guy off the street has not thought this through."
- freeflight 10y ago
  >It's not dishonest, it's representative of the actual situation. If you claim "they" don't even "think that far", while there are plenty of examples of "them" thinking further, then there's nothing representative at all about your statement. Copyright reform was, and still is, the platform the pirate party is running for all over the world. The random guy off the street also does not think about solving energy problems for the world, as such random guy off the street can be hardly a measure for anything at all.
anigbrowl 10y ago
Yeah, it does need to be rebuilt. but I have seen hardly anyone putting in any effort to do that, while lots and lots of people just help themselves to cultural output and excuse the resulting lack of revenue by saying 'lol copyright is broken.' Maybe next time try offering some new solutions before wrecking entire industries that you know nothing about and didn't take the time to understand, instead choosing to characterize them as part fo some monolithic Big Media that you feel OK about hating.

wfo 10y ago

You should try to present an argument against the position of your opponents in good faith, against the best version of their argument. Just because someone disagrees with you does not mean they are experiencing "cognitive dissonance". Armchair psychoanalyzing millions of people across the Internet and accusing them of some mental dysfunction because they dared to disagree with you does not paint your argument in a good light. You seem so upset about entire industries being destroyed -- last I heard industries were fine. Movies are being made and are making money. Music is proliferating everywhere and people are managing to make money. Artists are being screwed out of their money as they have been since decades before the Internet existed. Games, one of the most pirated things in the world are a huge booming industry. Journalism is not dying because of piracy -- has anyone ever pirated a newspaper or magazine? Illegal torrents of copies of the New York Times? What? Histrionics and caps lock don't particularly help your case, explain what you are talking about. It's certainly possible that the market is simply not an effective driver for artistic creation, especially in a world where art can be copy pasted trivially -- in the past, art has been mostly funded by the state or by wealthy individuals and patrons. Perhaps that model is better. It's also possible that the "cure" of locking down the Internet, mass surveillance to identify pirates, designing DRM so that machines work against their owners' interests and no longer obey the user is worse than the "disease" of piracy.

johnfn 10y ago
I think our first disagreement comes over the meaning of cognitive dissonance itself. I don't believe it to be a mental disorder- just that you're holding 2 conflicting ideas in your head at the same time. I'm well aware that I often do that, as so others. There's nothing horribly wrong with it, other than of course that you should realize you're doing it and stop. Maybe you could turn your statements about good faith first on me and assume that I'm not accusing everyone who disagrees with me of having a mental disorder. That would be rather extreme. :) In fact, it's rather surprising to me that you write about good faith but take my own argument in such poor faith! As for dying industries, I was referring to journalism and you are the second person to miss that so I am willing to believe I did a poor job explaining. I think I clarified well here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14107993 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14107993

ionised 10y ago

> LITERALLY DESTROYING ENTIRE INDUSTRIES AS WE STAND DEBATING WHETHER IT'S POSSIBLE? Except that's not true. Never has been. This kind of hyperbole just makes people switch off and stop listening.