3 ms·

It's not just that corporations own a lot of the physical infrastructure. Another factor is that humans as a group tend to force other humans to commercialize w

It's not just that corporations own a lot of the physical infrastructure. Another factor is that humans as a group tend to force other humans to commercialize what they do, even if they expressly don't want to do that and would rather publish it without ads, without paywalls, without subscriptions, etc. We do a poor job of making it possible for people who create open source and people who create free content to get enough money out of that to give things away freely in service of their ideals. And after a while, people sometimes get fed up with working for free, seeing it benefit other people and not benefit them. I complain a lot about that wrt to my own writing, but I'm not the only one. I've seen posts recently that complain about big companies using open source and/or open source providers being fed up with working for free. Just a couple of things that come readily to mind: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25186890 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25186890 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25032105 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25032105 I find this maddening, especially when the idea of UBI is so popular. We actively punish people doing good works and tell them "Up yours. If you are an idealist, you can do it for free and find some other way to pay your bills." and then also say "We should just give money away to all the poor people simply for existing" while not actually making that a reality. Talk of UBI makes me think of people I have known in the past who would make conditional promises, like "If I win the lottery, I will give you half." Somewhere along the way I figured out that "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush" and to not trust "naked men offering you the shirt off their back." People who actually want to make something happen will do the small thing in their power to accomplish today. People who make big promises based on long-shot bets (or on the idea that you need to make a big sacrifice before they will consider doing something for you -- and, no, it's not a stated as part of some kind of enforceable contract) are con artists, liars, manipulators and people wanting to be seen as "good guys" based on hot air without having to go through the pain and suffering typically required to do any real good in this world. If you want a better world, pry open your wallet and give a dollar to Patreon for an independent artist or a $5 PayPal tip or something. It's sort of a myth that big problems need big solutions. The antidote to a behemoth problem is often not some other equally powerful behemoth. It's often enough "little" solutions to weigh as much, so to speak. Start investing in the small answers. They are easier to reach and support and more likely to be a real antidote.

foxhop 6y ago
Fiercely put. I love it!
xpe 6y ago
> If you want a better world, pry open your wallet and give a dollar to Patreon for an independent artist or a $5 PayPal tip or something. This is a well-intentioned but contingent argument. From the point of view of a single organization, raising a small amount of money may not serve as an efficient means to making a better world. Put another way, there is a non-linear relationship between money raised and impact. When I think about giving money to an organization for a cause, I think about (at least): the efficiency of the organization; the importance of the cause; concentration (versus dilution) of resources; and concentration (versus dilution) of power. For example, consider the difference between: A. 1 million people giving $5 to one of 10,000 organizations evenly. B. 1 million people giving $5 to one of 10 organizations evenly. I'm not generally saying which allocation is better; I'm simply pointing out how concentration of donations makes a big difference. An organization with $500K can tackle different kinds of problems than one with $500.
xpe 6y ago
> Another factor is that humans as a group tend to force other humans to commercialize what they do, even if they expressly don't want to do that and would rather publish it without ads, without paywalls, without subscriptions, etc. You've strained the meaning of the word 'force'. Can you find another way to say it?
- DoreenMichele 6y ago
  I don't think I have. I don't think I have because I was literally homeless for years (and frequently too broke to eat) while trying to figure out how to get money for my writing and being told by people "Writing doesn't pay. Get a real job." while my writing hit the front page of HN sometimes and I was quite open about my medical situation and other factors that prevented me from finding some other way to support myself. I have a really extreme set of circumstances that have not given me some easy way out of continuing to try to get money for my writing in specific. If I had some easy out, I would have taken it ages ago. I did apply for a job -- the only one I tripped across that I felt qualified for. I didn't get it. I also do resume work and can't figure out how to get adequate traction with that either. etc etc. I've tried to find other answers. What little money I make for blogging has proven to be the least worst answer for me so far. If the entire world literally will let you starve and be homeless rather than give you money for work it values and praises that has no pay wall, I don't think it's straining the meaning of the word 'force' to say that will force some people to give up on their ideals and figure out something that keeps them fed and housed -- if they have any means to do that.

foxhop 6y ago

Fiercely put. I love it!

xpe 6y ago

> If you want a better world, pry open your wallet and give a dollar to Patreon for an independent artist or a $5 PayPal tip or something. This is a well-intentioned but contingent argument. From the point of view of a single organization, raising a small amount of money may not serve as an efficient means to making a better world. Put another way, there is a non-linear relationship between money raised and impact. When I think about giving money to an organization for a cause, I think about (at least): the efficiency of the organization; the importance of the cause; concentration (versus dilution) of resources; and concentration (versus dilution) of power. For example, consider the difference between: A. 1 million people giving $5 to one of 10,000 organizations evenly. B. 1 million people giving $5 to one of 10 organizations evenly. I'm not generally saying which allocation is better; I'm simply pointing out how concentration of donations makes a big difference. An organization with $500K can tackle different kinds of problems than one with $500.

xpe 6y ago

> Another factor is that humans as a group tend to force other humans to commercialize what they do, even if they expressly don't want to do that and would rather publish it without ads, without paywalls, without subscriptions, etc. You've strained the meaning of the word 'force'. Can you find another way to say it?

DoreenMichele 6y ago
I don't think I have. I don't think I have because I was literally homeless for years (and frequently too broke to eat) while trying to figure out how to get money for my writing and being told by people "Writing doesn't pay. Get a real job." while my writing hit the front page of HN sometimes and I was quite open about my medical situation and other factors that prevented me from finding some other way to support myself. I have a really extreme set of circumstances that have not given me some easy way out of continuing to try to get money for my writing in specific. If I had some easy out, I would have taken it ages ago. I did apply for a job -- the only one I tripped across that I felt qualified for. I didn't get it. I also do resume work and can't figure out how to get adequate traction with that either. etc etc. I've tried to find other answers. What little money I make for blogging has proven to be the least worst answer for me so far. If the entire world literally will let you starve and be homeless rather than give you money for work it values and praises that has no pay wall, I don't think it's straining the meaning of the word 'force' to say that will force some people to give up on their ideals and figure out something that keeps them fed and housed -- if they have any means to do that.