2 ms·
Not quite. Flickr, Youtube, et al. all derive their most value from user contributions. What good would Youtube be if users didn't upload videos? When describ
by astine 19y ago
Not quite. Flickr, Youtube, et al. all derive their most value from user contributions. What good would Youtube be if users didn't upload videos?
When described economically, labor is a resource and is one half of the production function:
P = c K^a * L^b
where a, b, and c are constants.
P is production,
K is capital,
and L is labor.
Youtube provides the capital, their site, and the users provide the labor, the adding of value through their videos.
Granted, the actual division isn't so clear cut in this case, or most cases, but by using these sites, you add value in a way that is fundamentally different than when you watch television.
- parker 19y agoI'm not adding value to NBC's bottom line by watching their television program?? It's called ratings. On the internet, we call them page views. Either way, I think the equation is changed fundamentally when labour does not need to be incentivized with money. The labour in this case is users, who choose to create value with their own time. How can we have a discussion about efficient inputs of labour when the price tends towards nothing? See, look, I've gone and made my brain hurt!
- astine 19y agoWho said you don't add to NBC's bottom line when you watch television? Of course you do, otherwise they wouldn't show it. However, what you don't do is you don't improve the quality of their programming, at least not directly. The equation doesn't change I don't believe, just it's implications. You no longer buy L, you have to earn it with K. Labour isn't free, even when you don't pay for it in money. Its dynamics are just more complicated.