2 ms·

Calories aren’t free. They’re not just there for the redistribution. What is one’s fair share of what another has worked to produce? Anyone can, for vanishing

Calories aren’t free. They’re not just there for the redistribution. What is one’s fair share of what another has worked to produce? Anyone can, for vanishingly low cost, distribute or access nearly any information they like. Yes, curation is important - and, like other work, has value worth trading for calories. Why the insistence on devaluing work, insisting the caloric cost of productivity not be compensated per its value to others?

CRConrad 5y ago
But curation is the work nobody wants to pay for now, isn't it? "Calories" and "caloric cost" is a funny measure of value. Especially ironic given that from a nutritional perspective, they're what the poor get too much of and the rich do their best to avoid. In the information-nutritional world, dross ("empty calories") is what FAANG throws at the plebeians to milk them of their money ("caloric value"?). So yeah, now it makes sense: You've got your "valuable" and "not valuable" bass-ackwards; what you come off as valuing highly is the offal that the rich throw to the poor.
- dredmorbius 5y ago
  My read is that ctdonath is equating infomration at nil marginal cost with food or fuel at nil marginal cost. I believe the absurdity is self-apparent. If that's not their argument ... then what they're trying to state is less than clear.
dredmorbius 5y ago
The starting point of this discussion was specifically how to pay. My initial comment in the thread addressed specifically that: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29573768 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29573768 Your own first comment rejected the claim that access to information was a problem, I addressed the additional concern that informational quality and relevance matter. Compensation for that role still falls under my first comment, linked above.

2 ms·

Calories aren’t free. They’re not just there for the redistribution. What is one’s fair share of what another has worked to produce? Anyone can, for vanishing

by ctdonath 5y ago

CRConrad 5y ago
But curation is the work nobody wants to pay for now, isn't it? "Calories" and "caloric cost" is a funny measure of value. Especially ironic given that from a nutritional perspective, they're what the poor get too much of and the rich do their best to avoid. In the information-nutritional world, dross ("empty calories") is what FAANG throws at the plebeians to milk them of their money ("caloric value"?). So yeah, now it makes sense: You've got your "valuable" and "not valuable" bass-ackwards; what you come off as valuing highly is the offal that the rich throw to the poor.
- dredmorbius 5y ago
  My read is that ctdonath is equating infomration at nil marginal cost with food or fuel at nil marginal cost. I believe the absurdity is self-apparent. If that's not their argument ... then what they're trying to state is less than clear.
dredmorbius 5y ago
The starting point of this discussion was specifically how to pay. My initial comment in the thread addressed specifically that: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29573768 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29573768 Your own first comment rejected the claim that access to information was a problem, I addressed the additional concern that informational quality and relevance matter. Compensation for that role still falls under my first comment, linked above.