4 ms·

>There is no such thing as free content on the Internet [...] >Everything costs something to make. If a person is putting out content for free, that means the

>There is no such thing as free content on the Internet [...] >Everything costs something to make. If a person is putting out content for free, that means they’re not getting paid for their time. First of all, remember when people posted things on the internet just out of our desire to share things? I certainly support Tony's decision to shut this down - it is his decision to make, and no one should feel FORCED to create content for free. But second of all, doesn't the second commend contradict the first?

percentcer 7y ago
My reading is that it's not "free" because it costs the creator something to make it, even if you get to consume it for free.
andrei_says_ 7y ago
Few "desires to share things" require 200+ hours per item, more than a work-month's worth of time. And, the authors did that amount of work for free for some time.
- lunchables 7y ago
  Of course, and I agree, as I said in my original post: >I certainly support Tony's decision to shut this down - it is his decision to make, and no one should feel FORCED to create content for free.
bryanrasmussen 7y ago
the delightful ambiguity of English allows us to say such things as "Things that are simple should be simple" and in context of describing design of systems have it understood as Things that are simple to describe should be simple to do. In this case the ambiguity has allowed them to say That which is free is not free, meaning that which is free to consume is not free to make. I certainly remember people posting stuff on the internet for free out of their desire to share. I also remember lots of those people over the years shutting down their delightful sites because not having the time to keep doing things for free, nor the money to pay for the hosting or other things like that.
- lunchables 7y ago
  >meaning that which is free to consume is not free to make. I guess it depends on what cost you want to include? I create content "for free" using my free time. Would you consider my mortgage, the cost of my computer, etc, to be part of the cost, so it is not "free" ? I wouldn't, because I would incur those costs whether or not I was making content "for free". >I certainly remember people posting stuff on the internet for free out of their desire to share. I also remember lots of those people over the years shutting down their delightful sites because not having the time to keep doing things for free, nor the money to pay for the hosting or other things like that. Yes, more and more all the time - exactly my point. And like I said in my original post, it is certainly there prerogative. If they don't enjoy it, they should stop.

percentcer 7y ago

My reading is that it's not "free" because it costs the creator something to make it, even if you get to consume it for free.

andrei_says_ 7y ago

Few "desires to share things" require 200+ hours per item, more than a work-month's worth of time. And, the authors did that amount of work for free for some time.

lunchables 7y ago
Of course, and I agree, as I said in my original post: >I certainly support Tony's decision to shut this down - it is his decision to make, and no one should feel FORCED to create content for free.

bryanrasmussen 7y ago

the delightful ambiguity of English allows us to say such things as "Things that are simple should be simple" and in context of describing design of systems have it understood as Things that are simple to describe should be simple to do. In this case the ambiguity has allowed them to say That which is free is not free, meaning that which is free to consume is not free to make. I certainly remember people posting stuff on the internet for free out of their desire to share. I also remember lots of those people over the years shutting down their delightful sites because not having the time to keep doing things for free, nor the money to pay for the hosting or other things like that.

lunchables 7y ago
>meaning that which is free to consume is not free to make. I guess it depends on what cost you want to include? I create content "for free" using my free time. Would you consider my mortgage, the cost of my computer, etc, to be part of the cost, so it is not "free" ? I wouldn't, because I would incur those costs whether or not I was making content "for free". >I certainly remember people posting stuff on the internet for free out of their desire to share. I also remember lots of those people over the years shutting down their delightful sites because not having the time to keep doing things for free, nor the money to pay for the hosting or other things like that. Yes, more and more all the time - exactly my point. And like I said in my original post, it is certainly there prerogative. If they don't enjoy it, they should stop.