5 ms·

Frankly, I want less commercial content. I want to read and watch stuff put out by hobbyists, people who are excited by what they're doing, who would do it with

by blfr 6y ago

Frankly, I want less commercial content. I want to read and watch stuff put out by hobbyists, people who are excited by what they're doing, who would do it without compensation anyway. I see very little upside to professionalisation of sports, sex, writing, even reporting. Anything worth doing is worth doing badly. Some things are just better when done by amateurs or done instead of watched. Journalism is best (worst) example. We are being deceived by dilettantes with slick production values and almost universally an agenda or served straight-up propaganda. I'd rather delve into less polished material from people who actually know things because they have a deep drive towards understanding them.

sofixa 6y ago
> Frankly, I want less commercial content. I want to read and watch stuff put out by hobbyists, people who are excited by what they're doing, who would do it without compensation anyway. The fact that someone would do it without compensation doesn't mean that if they do get compensation they wouldn't spend more time on it. It's precisely for hobbyist-level stuff where web monetization can really shine.
- pdimitar 6y ago
  Disagreed. When the money starts rolling in, your thinking changes. Not saying there are no people who resist it but most don't, and I've seen good YouTube and Twitch channels get completely ruined after their creator went past the $3000 donations/subs mark per month.
Noos 6y ago
I too would like people to work to provide content for me for free, which is what you are asking. I'd love it if you enjoyed programming so much that you'd code a database for me, please. I mean, i see little to no upside of the professionalization of computer engineering. Some things are just better done by amateurs, who do it for pure love of programming and for free. On a more serious note, eventually amateurs stop loving it and get burned out, because it's a lot of work to make high quality content on top of a day job you hate. Just because they are amateur doesn't mean what they do is effortless. And I'm not even going into the people who want amateurs to work for free so they can middleman and make money off of aggregated content, which is what techbros love to do.
- blfr 6y ago
  I too would like people to work to provide content for me for free, which is what you are asking. The problem is that paid content is bad. It's almost universally a signal of low quality. My Twitter timeline, HN comments, IRC channels, obscure invite-only forums, or nerd/rationalists blogs have demonstrably better information on everything from the pandemic and nutrition to investment and programming than any well-compensated journalists I've ever read. Not to mention humour. They manage to be more accurate, informative, and funnier at the same time. It should be difficult, nigh impossible, but isn't because paid media is terrible. Pandering to their audience, just the fact that everyone have a book in them but not necessarily four, groupthink in the MSM, adverse selection... I don't know the reason but I'm hardly the only one to see it. I'd love it if you enjoyed programming so much that you'd code a database for me, please. I mean, i see little to no upside of the professionalization of computer engineering. Some things are just better done by amateurs, who do it for pure love of programming and for free. Funny since I have half a dozen Windows licenses and use a free Linux distro to respond to you. It was largely written by professionals, sure, but there's still something to your take as well, even if it's a little GPT-like.
  - sofixa 6y ago
    > My Twitter timeline, HN comments, IRC channels, obscure invite-only forums, or nerd/rationalists blogs have demonstrably better information on everything from the pandemic and nutrition to investment and programming than any well-compensated journalists I've ever read. Not to mention humour. They manage to be more accurate, informative, and funnier at the same time. I refuse to believe you. What are your "Twitter timeline, HN comments, IRC channels, obscure invite-only forums, or nerd/rationalists blogs"'s sources? How the f can they provide better information on the pandemic unless you have actual virologists and public health experts actually working on it there? If you don't ( and having them would be pure chance since you can't possibly follow multiple experts from every single domain on the planet )? > It should be difficult, nigh impossible, but isn't because paid media is terrible. Pandering to their audience, just the fact that everyone have a book in them but not necessarily four, groupthink in the MSM, adverse selection... I don't know the reason but I'm hardly the only one to see it. Bullshit. The mere fact that you use the bullsit "MSM" "term" is indicative of your lack of knowledge on the matter. Not only that, the blatant disregard for any traditional media is dangerous on a few fronts - you live in your bubble, you're overly reliant on what information trickles down to you via said bubble, and even if your bubble is magnificent, has all sorts of actual experts in it, and you're actually knowledgeable and intelligent enough to be able to filter and prioritize, your wrong opinion might convince some people that do not have all of the above to follow your example, and that is how you get Q lunatics living in an alternate reality. Furthermore, have you actually recently used any media of good reputation and standing, paid or not? Personally i'm subscribed to the FT, and i have seen tons of stories not readily available through HN, Twitter, etc., and more to the point, in much more depth, usually. There's the occasional not really well written article, which gets compensated by the availability of other sources, but the analysis of professional journalists, with associated graphs, images, direct sources, etc. is IMHO priceless. FT and Fox couldn't be farther apart, yet your ridiculous label "MSM" groups them together. On what grounds? > Funny since I have half a dozen Windows licenses and use a free Linux distro to respond to you. It was largely written by professionals, sure, but there's still something to your take as well, even if it's a little GPT-like. Linux is maintained by professionals, indeed. If the initial amateurs never got any funding to do it full time, it wouldn't have come as far. So exactly counter to your argument?

by blfr 6y ago

sofixa 6y ago

> Frankly, I want less commercial content. I want to read and watch stuff put out by hobbyists, people who are excited by what they're doing, who would do it without compensation anyway. The fact that someone would do it without compensation doesn't mean that if they do get compensation they wouldn't spend more time on it. It's precisely for hobbyist-level stuff where web monetization can really shine.

pdimitar 6y ago
Disagreed. When the money starts rolling in, your thinking changes. Not saying there are no people who resist it but most don't, and I've seen good YouTube and Twitch channels get completely ruined after their creator went past the $3000 donations/subs mark per month.

Noos 6y ago

I too would like people to work to provide content for me for free, which is what you are asking. I'd love it if you enjoyed programming so much that you'd code a database for me, please. I mean, i see little to no upside of the professionalization of computer engineering. Some things are just better done by amateurs, who do it for pure love of programming and for free. On a more serious note, eventually amateurs stop loving it and get burned out, because it's a lot of work to make high quality content on top of a day job you hate. Just because they are amateur doesn't mean what they do is effortless. And I'm not even going into the people who want amateurs to work for free so they can middleman and make money off of aggregated content, which is what techbros love to do.

blfr 6y ago
I too would like people to work to provide content for me for free, which is what you are asking. The problem is that paid content is bad. It's almost universally a signal of low quality. My Twitter timeline, HN comments, IRC channels, obscure invite-only forums, or nerd/rationalists blogs have demonstrably better information on everything from the pandemic and nutrition to investment and programming than any well-compensated journalists I've ever read. Not to mention humour. They manage to be more accurate, informative, and funnier at the same time. It should be difficult, nigh impossible, but isn't because paid media is terrible. Pandering to their audience, just the fact that everyone have a book in them but not necessarily four, groupthink in the MSM, adverse selection... I don't know the reason but I'm hardly the only one to see it. I'd love it if you enjoyed programming so much that you'd code a database for me, please. I mean, i see little to no upside of the professionalization of computer engineering. Some things are just better done by amateurs, who do it for pure love of programming and for free. Funny since I have half a dozen Windows licenses and use a free Linux distro to respond to you. It was largely written by professionals, sure, but there's still something to your take as well, even if it's a little GPT-like.
- sofixa 6y ago
  > My Twitter timeline, HN comments, IRC channels, obscure invite-only forums, or nerd/rationalists blogs have demonstrably better information on everything from the pandemic and nutrition to investment and programming than any well-compensated journalists I've ever read. Not to mention humour. They manage to be more accurate, informative, and funnier at the same time. I refuse to believe you. What are your "Twitter timeline, HN comments, IRC channels, obscure invite-only forums, or nerd/rationalists blogs"'s sources? How the f can they provide better information on the pandemic unless you have actual virologists and public health experts actually working on it there? If you don't ( and having them would be pure chance since you can't possibly follow multiple experts from every single domain on the planet )? > It should be difficult, nigh impossible, but isn't because paid media is terrible. Pandering to their audience, just the fact that everyone have a book in them but not necessarily four, groupthink in the MSM, adverse selection... I don't know the reason but I'm hardly the only one to see it. Bullshit. The mere fact that you use the bullsit "MSM" "term" is indicative of your lack of knowledge on the matter. Not only that, the blatant disregard for any traditional media is dangerous on a few fronts - you live in your bubble, you're overly reliant on what information trickles down to you via said bubble, and even if your bubble is magnificent, has all sorts of actual experts in it, and you're actually knowledgeable and intelligent enough to be able to filter and prioritize, your wrong opinion might convince some people that do not have all of the above to follow your example, and that is how you get Q lunatics living in an alternate reality. Furthermore, have you actually recently used any media of good reputation and standing, paid or not? Personally i'm subscribed to the FT, and i have seen tons of stories not readily available through HN, Twitter, etc., and more to the point, in much more depth, usually. There's the occasional not really well written article, which gets compensated by the availability of other sources, but the analysis of professional journalists, with associated graphs, images, direct sources, etc. is IMHO priceless. FT and Fox couldn't be farther apart, yet your ridiculous label "MSM" groups them together. On what grounds? > Funny since I have half a dozen Windows licenses and use a free Linux distro to respond to you. It was largely written by professionals, sure, but there's still something to your take as well, even if it's a little GPT-like. Linux is maintained by professionals, indeed. If the initial amateurs never got any funding to do it full time, it wouldn't have come as far. So exactly counter to your argument?