4 ms·

> "You need to either stop writing or accept that you have to do it for free." This is not what my argument boils down to. My question was clear: "why keep giv

> "You need to either stop writing or accept that you have to do it for free." This is not what my argument boils down to. My question was clear: "why keep giving away your content for free?" I never said you need to stop writing _or_ accept that you have to do it for free. In fact you already know that since you state this later in your post: > I have considered other options, like trying to do an e-book or a subscription or something. I don't think that works. Honestly I don't know what to tell you. I guess the world doesn't work the way you'd wish. Artists have always had it hard in this world. I don't see why that will change now. In fact, I think it'll get worse since it's so easy to distribute digital art and people like myself are willing to give away content for free. Just as I'm willing to post for free. And willing to do almost all I do outside of formal work for free. It makes me fundamentally disagree with this claim you make: > So we have this situation where serious problems are growing worse because you can't monetize an effective approach. Not everything can be monetized. Not everything deserves to be monetized. You shouldn't do everything simply because it can be monetized. (In fact, you _don't_ do everything because it can be monetized as you've explicitly stated in this post.) > These are problems I feel I have good solutions for. Everyone acts like they can't be solved. I think they can. I honestly don't understand what you consider a problem. > And maybe someday I will cave and throw in the towel and stop doing something I believe in and go do something that pays better, thou it makes me feel I am selling my soul. But so far I am not there yet. I would still like to try to make a difference putting out independent information about things that work. But I also would like to stop living hand to mouth. Why is an either or? Why can you not work to support yourself and put out independent information?

DoreenMichele 9y ago
Why can you not work to support yourself and put out independent information? The extremely short version is that good quality anything takes substantial time, energy and other resources to produce. It really isn't reasonable for the world to expect good quality content completely for free. That is the essence of the ongoing presence of articles like the one under discussion here: the internet has historically been financed by advertising because everyone wants it for free and now we see ads as evil and messing everything up. But we still want it for free. That's the issue here. You can't really have it both ways.
- CogitoCogito 9y ago
  You don't define "good quality anything" so it's a little hard to know how I should read this. In many cases it is certainly false. There is a lot of content that can be produced, albeit at a reduced rate, when not being worked on for free. Though yes of course there is a lot of content that requires too much investment to be realistically produced in someone's spare time. But that's always been the case. I guess I don't fully understand your point. That people value the wrong things? (I would strongly agree.) I don't think you're quite right that people feel entitled to receive things for free because the fact is that they are provided things for free all the time. You're not having trouble monetizing things because no one will pay, but really because no one feels the need to pay. Given the deluge of content available, the relative value of yours just maybe isn't that much by average people. There is a very large amount of free content of extremely high value. This predates the internet, but with the internet we are flooded with it. That's why this statement (at least made so generally) is definitely wrong: > That's the issue here. You can't really have it both ways.
  - DoreenMichele 9y ago
    There is a very large amount of free content of extremely high value. This predates the internet, but with the internet we are flooded with it. That's why this statement (at least made so generally) is definitely wrong: > That's the issue here. You can't really have it both ways. The fact that you can access it without paying for it doesn't mean it didn't involve substantial resources to create it. Acting like one should not have to pay anything to cover those costs is the essence of expecting slave labor. In every single discussion I have seen on HN on this topic, that is what boils down to. Whatever time, education, experience, effort, and other resources it took to create quality content gets hand waved away with "well, I can get it for free now. So why would I pay?" Never mind that these discussions are inevitably in relation to an article about advertising, how much people hate it, how evil it is and so on. Those ads are how free content and free services and free internet stuff came into being. You ultimately can't have it both ways. People want ads to die. Those ads pay for all this stuff you take for granted will be available for free. Reiterating that you aren't willing to pay doesn't solve the problem under discussion here. Ads are the mechanism that made stuff "free." If people want them to disappear, then they need to find another means to finance that content. Without that, ads are here to stay and their aggressive, manipulative approach just gets worse in the face of ad blockers etc.

DoreenMichele 9y ago

Why can you not work to support yourself and put out independent information? The extremely short version is that good quality anything takes substantial time, energy and other resources to produce. It really isn't reasonable for the world to expect good quality content completely for free. That is the essence of the ongoing presence of articles like the one under discussion here: the internet has historically been financed by advertising because everyone wants it for free and now we see ads as evil and messing everything up. But we still want it for free. That's the issue here. You can't really have it both ways.

CogitoCogito 9y ago
You don't define "good quality anything" so it's a little hard to know how I should read this. In many cases it is certainly false. There is a lot of content that can be produced, albeit at a reduced rate, when not being worked on for free. Though yes of course there is a lot of content that requires too much investment to be realistically produced in someone's spare time. But that's always been the case. I guess I don't fully understand your point. That people value the wrong things? (I would strongly agree.) I don't think you're quite right that people feel entitled to receive things for free because the fact is that they are provided things for free all the time. You're not having trouble monetizing things because no one will pay, but really because no one feels the need to pay. Given the deluge of content available, the relative value of yours just maybe isn't that much by average people. There is a very large amount of free content of extremely high value. This predates the internet, but with the internet we are flooded with it. That's why this statement (at least made so generally) is definitely wrong: > That's the issue here. You can't really have it both ways.
- DoreenMichele 9y ago
  There is a very large amount of free content of extremely high value. This predates the internet, but with the internet we are flooded with it. That's why this statement (at least made so generally) is definitely wrong: > That's the issue here. You can't really have it both ways. The fact that you can access it without paying for it doesn't mean it didn't involve substantial resources to create it. Acting like one should not have to pay anything to cover those costs is the essence of expecting slave labor. In every single discussion I have seen on HN on this topic, that is what boils down to. Whatever time, education, experience, effort, and other resources it took to create quality content gets hand waved away with "well, I can get it for free now. So why would I pay?" Never mind that these discussions are inevitably in relation to an article about advertising, how much people hate it, how evil it is and so on. Those ads are how free content and free services and free internet stuff came into being. You ultimately can't have it both ways. People want ads to die. Those ads pay for all this stuff you take for granted will be available for free. Reiterating that you aren't willing to pay doesn't solve the problem under discussion here. Ads are the mechanism that made stuff "free." If people want them to disappear, then they need to find another means to finance that content. Without that, ads are here to stay and their aggressive, manipulative approach just gets worse in the face of ad blockers etc.