3 ms·

In documentary we don't typically pay people anything to tell us their life stories.

by Fricken 4y ago

busterarm 4y ago
But Mark does pay his subjects.
- stackola 4y ago
  Would it be better if he didn't?
- concinds 4y ago
  Would it be more ethical not to pay? I don't get it. Interview them for free, you're making money without compensating them. Interview them and give them part, you're exploiting them by underpaying them. Interview them and give them all profits, you're enabling their addiction. Give away the non-ad revenue, you're just abusing a tax writeoff. Don't give it away, you're enriching yourself. Your economic ideology seems quite fluid, and seems to lack internal consistency.
  - treis 4y ago
    Gets murky when we're talking about prostitutes that funnel their money to/get it stolen by pimps. Also gets murky when we're talking about drug addicts who are going to use that money to buy drugs. Also gets murky when we're talking about people that are under the influence of drugs. They probably don't want a video out there of them blasted to the moon if they ever get clean.
    - brokenmachine 4y ago
      You would be shocked to learn how many of your coworkers use their paycheck to buy drugs.
- zarzavat 4y ago
  It’s not exploitative to pay people for their time. It’s basic decency. There’s three options for remuneration. 1. Pay nothing 2. Pay them for their time 3. Give them a large cut If the contention is that they may be junkies then 3 is probably not a great idea, better to give the money to charity. If the contention is that it’s exploitation then surely 2 is less exploitative than 1. In the end, giving people a voice who don’t have one currently is the complete opposite of exploitation.
  - mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y ago
    It can be argued that 2 is more exploitative if they would never do it in 1, and are only doing it because they're desperate for their next fix, even though it's not going to improve their life.
- Nzen 4y ago
  People keep citing $50, but sometimes he pays more. This video with Exotic [0] mentions that he paid for her apartment and lifestyle expenses, to the tune of several hundred dollars a day, for a time. I have no idea how common that was, but it qualifies the 50/1050 split otherwise used to characterize his practice. [0] https://youtu.be/nWwKePTgECA?t=36 https://youtu.be/nWwKePTgECA?t=36

In documentary we don't typically pay people anything to tell us their life stories.

busterarm 4y ago

But Mark does pay his subjects.

stackola 4y ago
Would it be better if he didn't?
concinds 4y ago
Would it be more ethical not to pay? I don't get it. Interview them for free, you're making money without compensating them. Interview them and give them part, you're exploiting them by underpaying them. Interview them and give them all profits, you're enabling their addiction. Give away the non-ad revenue, you're just abusing a tax writeoff. Don't give it away, you're enriching yourself. Your economic ideology seems quite fluid, and seems to lack internal consistency.
- treis 4y ago
  Gets murky when we're talking about prostitutes that funnel their money to/get it stolen by pimps. Also gets murky when we're talking about drug addicts who are going to use that money to buy drugs. Also gets murky when we're talking about people that are under the influence of drugs. They probably don't want a video out there of them blasted to the moon if they ever get clean.
  - brokenmachine 4y ago
    You would be shocked to learn how many of your coworkers use their paycheck to buy drugs.
zarzavat 4y ago
It’s not exploitative to pay people for their time. It’s basic decency. There’s three options for remuneration. 1. Pay nothing 2. Pay them for their time 3. Give them a large cut If the contention is that they may be junkies then 3 is probably not a great idea, better to give the money to charity. If the contention is that it’s exploitation then surely 2 is less exploitative than 1. In the end, giving people a voice who don’t have one currently is the complete opposite of exploitation.
- mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y ago
  It can be argued that 2 is more exploitative if they would never do it in 1, and are only doing it because they're desperate for their next fix, even though it's not going to improve their life.
Nzen 4y ago
People keep citing $50, but sometimes he pays more. This video with Exotic [0] mentions that he paid for her apartment and lifestyle expenses, to the tune of several hundred dollars a day, for a time. I have no idea how common that was, but it qualifies the 50/1050 split otherwise used to characterize his practice. [0] https://youtu.be/nWwKePTgECA?t=36 https://youtu.be/nWwKePTgECA?t=36