4 ms·
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, w
by 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 agomaybe the people who understand it are human individual persons and the people who don't are corporate collective persons.
- kerkeslager 4y agoThere 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.