3 ms·

> I can throw a free piece of chocolate in the trash if I don't like it. Throwing a 13¢ piece of chocolate away is like throwing away 13¢. This is literally th

by hnbad 4y ago

> I can throw a free piece of chocolate in the trash if I don't like it. Throwing a 13¢ piece of chocolate away is like throwing away 13¢. This is literally the sunk cost fallacy. There's nothing rational about sticking to an awful candy bar because you paid money for it vs throwing away the free one because you didn't. Lastly, online news consumption is very much suffering from this problem. Not just at the consumer level: think tanks funded by billionaires trying to affect political policy often provide ready-made "press info" and 24/7 contact details for arranging interviews or video calls whereas citing actual research means having to wade through research papers and trying to get a hold of busy scientists with little media training. In consequence you'll see a lot more media appearances of so-called "experts" doing PR for opaque think tanks than actual researchers qualified to give an "objective" view on an issue. It's not just that "free" media is bad, it's that it can often afford spending tons of money on refining its content in such a way to further its sponsors' political goals. And it's not an accident that most of these outlets espouse right-wing views rather than left-wing -- as progressive as some billionaires may allegedly be, consumer protection, workers' rights, wealth redistribution and democratizing political power are antithetical to the interests of all billionaires, so aside from some pet issues any actual left-wing politics that go beyond ineffective posturing are off the table if they want to maintain their positions of power and wealth. I'm not saying this means you should pay for news (or that paid news sources are always more neutral and factual -- arguably neutrality is an impossibility and not even necessarily desirable). I'm saying that asking people to pay for news means only those able and willing to pay for news will get access to them and everybody else will be preyed upon anyone who can afford to provide "news" for free.

lupire 4y ago
It's not sunk cost if you refuse to buy the 13c chocolate as PP said.
TheOtherHobbes 4y ago
The economic frame is entirely the wrong one for this. Economics is primarily about behaviour modification and "free" is one popular strategy for changing beliefs and behaviours. There are truly altruistic examples of "free", but they're much rarer than people think. With "free" news the cost is attention and a risk of having beliefs and behaviours influenced. Some people think that's a price worth paying. But this influence is covert, uncosted, and may even be presented in deliberately deceptive ways. So it's not seen for what it is. If the exchange value was spelled out there would be far fewer takers.

by hnbad 4y ago

lupire 4y ago

It's not sunk cost if you refuse to buy the 13c chocolate as PP said.

TheOtherHobbes 4y ago

The economic frame is entirely the wrong one for this. Economics is primarily about behaviour modification and "free" is one popular strategy for changing beliefs and behaviours. There are truly altruistic examples of "free", but they're much rarer than people think. With "free" news the cost is attention and a risk of having beliefs and behaviours influenced. Some people think that's a price worth paying. But this influence is covert, uncosted, and may even be presented in deliberately deceptive ways. So it's not seen for what it is. If the exchange value was spelled out there would be far fewer takers.