6 ms·

>NFTs are comically bereft of anything we would associate with social or cultural value. This subjective opinion is frequently trotted out to describe digital

>NFTs are comically bereft of anything we would associate with social or cultural value. This subjective opinion is frequently trotted out to describe digital items that people pay money for. The arguments used in this piece can just as easily apply to video games or anything else. There isn't anything new presented here, just one person railing against something they do not like using familiar arguments. IMO not the type of thought provoking content that people come to HN for.

OJFord 5y ago
I assume you mean in-game trinkets and costumes etc. rather than video games themselves? The latter seems like a massive stretch, and I don't know why it wouldn't include films too.
vultour 5y ago
This video game comparison is super incorrect. If you own an item in a game it’s very often to show it off because others can’t use it, it’s only for you. The closed source nature of games enables this. Nobody would buy them if they were easily used by anyone but you had a super legit receipt saying “mhm this guy actually paid for it”. NFTs of dumb copy pasted JPEGs are completely useless.
- strict9 5y ago
  You misunderstood my argument. I'm not comparing NFTs to video games for ownership purposes, but it's "contribution to society." The statement that NFTs "have no societal or cultural value" has been historically attributed to video games and other forms of leisurely/fun activity. It's a bad argument.
  - danaris 5y ago
    The fact that a specific argument has been used in bad faith in the past does not mean it cannot be used in good faith. Games are demonstrably something valuable: they are art, they are entertainment, they are a product. NFTs are none of those things. They're just a new way to try to milk money out of people, who gain nothing meaningful in return.
jayd16 5y ago
NFTs aren't the content and you should not conflate them.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

OJFord 5y ago

I assume you mean in-game trinkets and costumes etc. rather than video games themselves? The latter seems like a massive stretch, and I don't know why it wouldn't include films too.

vultour 5y ago

This video game comparison is super incorrect. If you own an item in a game it’s very often to show it off because others can’t use it, it’s only for you. The closed source nature of games enables this. Nobody would buy them if they were easily used by anyone but you had a super legit receipt saying “mhm this guy actually paid for it”. NFTs of dumb copy pasted JPEGs are completely useless.

strict9 5y ago
You misunderstood my argument. I'm not comparing NFTs to video games for ownership purposes, but it's "contribution to society." The statement that NFTs "have no societal or cultural value" has been historically attributed to video games and other forms of leisurely/fun activity. It's a bad argument.
- danaris 5y ago
  The fact that a specific argument has been used in bad faith in the past does not mean it cannot be used in good faith. Games are demonstrably something valuable: they are art, they are entertainment, they are a product. NFTs are none of those things. They're just a new way to try to milk money out of people, who gain nothing meaningful in return.

jayd16 5y ago

NFTs aren't the content and you should not conflate them.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]