> you could replace "writer" with almost anything and make the same analogy. Even something like "hitman"! This is some extraordinary specious reasoning, compa

> you could replace "writer" with almost anything and make the same analogy. Even something like "hitman"! This is some extraordinary specious reasoning, comparing "writer" with "hitman". How is "hitman" a creative force for good for society? There is value in good writing. We haven't figured out how to judge and pay for it directly. It's not hard to see that if you continue to not pay for something, it doesn't get done. And one day a billionaire will pay for it, as some special project. Bezos owns the WaPo, I'm not making any statement about editorial influence, but is it a reach to surmise the WaPo is more hesitant in publishing negative articles about things in Bezos' influence? He can probably give the paper away for free, or subsidize it. Then you will say, is everything bought and paid for by the billionaires? Do I declare for the fiefdom of Elon or the barony of Zuckerberg? It's miserable. This was literally a comment on HN last week. There's value in writing, music-making, art, cooking, photography. That the world doesn't pay well for these things, or the pay curve is depressed except for the very few, is not a convincing argument that they are inherently not valuable. The HN crowd is in the Maslow hierarchy to be able to afford to pay for it. Pay for the things you want more of. If you don't pay for independent writing, someone else will pay for it, and it's not to support your interests.