5 ms·
Hm, a solution. They privatize it, and then companies will say to their webdevs, we don't want to pay extra for a profit of some capitalist, write the website w
by js8 5y ago
Hm, a solution. They privatize it, and then companies will say to their webdevs, we don't want to pay extra for a profit of some capitalist, write the website without it.
So each webdev will end up with their own half-baked solution. Tragedy of the lack of commons!
I hear you cry, but that's irrational! Precisely, but so is not caring about the commons and letting them die.
I am not under an illusion that under capitalism, people cannot pass the buck (responsibility for maintenance) away too.
- tonyedgecombe 5y agoCompanies make those sort of trade offs all the time, whether to buy or build. It doesn't take many to decide to buy to fund a small project like Babel. Not only that but you are likely to see competition driving the whole thing forward.
- js8 5y agoMy point was that framing this as a tragedy of the commons problem, and here's the standard solution, can itself be disputed. The hidden assumption is that the capitalist will take the responsibility to take care of the thing, and provide it for a fair price, but it is by no means given. Certainly, there are examples of economic failures of this type as well. (Even in software, Unixes/Lisps..)