4 ms·

"But commoditization!" exclaimed the corporate finance types and assorted growth hackers. As someone who transitioned from law and finance to tech, it's appare

"But commoditization!" exclaimed the corporate finance types and assorted growth hackers. As someone who transitioned from law and finance to tech, it's apparent that a greater reckoning must take place. Trying to graft tech on to what is essentially an early 20th century paradigm bodes well for the entrenched interests.

kerkeslager 4y ago
People don't seem to understand that some people are intrinsically motivated to create things, and don't need to be incentivized with money. And that in fact, when you set out to make money by creating things, the results are shittier, because you're setting out to make money, not to create things.
- livelielife 4y ago
  maybe the people who understand it are human individual persons and the people who don't are corporate collective persons.
  - kerkeslager 4y ago
    There is probably an element of truth to that. But given the number of individuals on HN who are deeply concerned how we'll fund content creators if we get rid of ads on the internet, at least a pretty significant portion of individuals have drunk the corporate kool-aid with regards to this. While I appreciate the distinction you've made in your post, I would encourage you to not use the word "person" to refer to corporations. I understand the judicial precedent--I'm saying that the law is wrong and we should absolutely not adopt the definition of corporations as persons in to the English language. Corporations don't have rights; they exist to serve people who do have rights. Legal precedent granting corporations rights under the law is a morally reprehensible mistake which should be corrected.
livelielife 4y ago
I think we're dealing with much older paradigms than the 20th century gotta transition from a mindset of trading merchandise to a mindset of (technologically possible) non-scarce digital assets. and we've traded merchandise for more than a few thousands of years, so I see a problem larger than just 20th century paradigms. but trade is a bit nonsensical on digital stuff, as NFTs clearly demonstrated, so it's not a trivial issue

kerkeslager 4y ago

People don't seem to understand that some people are intrinsically motivated to create things, and don't need to be incentivized with money. And that in fact, when you set out to make money by creating things, the results are shittier, because you're setting out to make money, not to create things.

livelielife 4y ago
maybe the people who understand it are human individual persons and the people who don't are corporate collective persons.
- kerkeslager 4y ago
  There is probably an element of truth to that. But given the number of individuals on HN who are deeply concerned how we'll fund content creators if we get rid of ads on the internet, at least a pretty significant portion of individuals have drunk the corporate kool-aid with regards to this. While I appreciate the distinction you've made in your post, I would encourage you to not use the word "person" to refer to corporations. I understand the judicial precedent--I'm saying that the law is wrong and we should absolutely not adopt the definition of corporations as persons in to the English language. Corporations don't have rights; they exist to serve people who do have rights. Legal precedent granting corporations rights under the law is a morally reprehensible mistake which should be corrected.

livelielife 4y ago

I think we're dealing with much older paradigms than the 20th century gotta transition from a mindset of trading merchandise to a mindset of (technologically possible) non-scarce digital assets. and we've traded merchandise for more than a few thousands of years, so I see a problem larger than just 20th century paradigms. but trade is a bit nonsensical on digital stuff, as NFTs clearly demonstrated, so it's not a trivial issue