3 ms·

These patterns exist because it's the only way to get rewarded for writing. This might not be important to a humble blogger, but it does to someone investing a

by nicbou 4y ago

These patterns exist because it's the only way to get rewarded for writing. This might not be important to a humble blogger, but it does to someone investing a lot of time into a corpus of useful information. The alternative is to pay for what you read, but people won't do that. They won't even donate. Not even after they email you with extra questions, and you offer them personalised advice. The way I see it, you get a free beer, but there's an ad on the glass and the coaster. If you don't like that deal, you can buy the beer your consume. You can accept your free beer or you can leave. Just don't get your free beer then complain about the pour. You're not entitled to free beer.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
Grothendank 4y ago
Let me extend the Free Beer analogy. Suppose the bar where you serve free beer: 1. is an eyesore 2. serves beer I hate 3. bars the entry to vendors that serve beer I love Then I think you'll find I can do much better than simply being silent about the apparent conflict: 1. I can protest your bar. 2. I can promote the belief that your bar is an intolerable eyesore. 3. I can campaign to have the bar removed from the town square. In that way, I work to restore access to vendors I love. That is why I believe it is necessary to picket and complain about this mechanism, reduce the reputation of any author who seeks to profit from it, and foreground the damage it causes: to highlight the fact that it makes it harder to find writings that are genuinely for the public good. A writer can arrange for their public writings to be fully free. Many writers do that. It's not a privilege. It's a choice based on the writer's values. It is choice based on the value of not extracting profit from the Public Good. There is simply no excuse for marketing and SEO spam in writing. Writers who choose that route have no more valid reason to expect an income than writers who eschew it. Indeed, writers who do it have reason to expect a loss of reputation. Again, when writers choose that route, they make it harder for honest writers to have their writings seen. Therefore, writers who choose that route have reason abandon that route and seek a more honest monetization route. Finally, writers who refuse to do that have reason to expect my boycott.

by nicbou 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

Grothendank 4y ago

Let me extend the Free Beer analogy. Suppose the bar where you serve free beer: 1. is an eyesore 2. serves beer I hate 3. bars the entry to vendors that serve beer I love Then I think you'll find I can do much better than simply being silent about the apparent conflict: 1. I can protest your bar. 2. I can promote the belief that your bar is an intolerable eyesore. 3. I can campaign to have the bar removed from the town square. In that way, I work to restore access to vendors I love. That is why I believe it is necessary to picket and complain about this mechanism, reduce the reputation of any author who seeks to profit from it, and foreground the damage it causes: to highlight the fact that it makes it harder to find writings that are genuinely for the public good. A writer can arrange for their public writings to be fully free. Many writers do that. It's not a privilege. It's a choice based on the writer's values. It is choice based on the value of not extracting profit from the Public Good. There is simply no excuse for marketing and SEO spam in writing. Writers who choose that route have no more valid reason to expect an income than writers who eschew it. Indeed, writers who do it have reason to expect a loss of reputation. Again, when writers choose that route, they make it harder for honest writers to have their writings seen. Therefore, writers who choose that route have reason abandon that route and seek a more honest monetization route. Finally, writers who refuse to do that have reason to expect my boycott.