4 ms·

>then it's because that person has decided she doesn't want to afford it That is VERY flawed logic that suggests a very privileged life. Growing up my family w

>then it's because that person has decided she doesn't want to afford it That is VERY flawed logic that suggests a very privileged life. Growing up my family was downright poor to the point we sometimes lost electricity because we had to buy bologna and bread for supper instead. We used an ancient PC that was given to us to access the internet which was 10$/month for dialup, but even that sometimes got cut out, again, because we needed food. Having spent most of my childhood in a trailer park with disparaged people, it often comes down to a mix of tough situations, bad luck, and poor life choices. Should we really punish them for it by locking things behind a paywall? I don't think so. Also should we have our privacy be violated to support the poor? Also no. This is why I am trying to brainstorm a third option...one that isn't classist but still allows for privacy. Its a tough question and I am having trouble coming up with solutions...but a third option HAS to exist somewhere. As for your point about classism not being applied to the devices themselves, that is because you could fall out of a tree and hit five cell phones on your way down. If you know pretty much anyone, they probably have a spare old phone they haven't touched in years they can let you have if you can't afford your own. People also throw them out all the time so you can get one out of the trash and it will still be plenty useable. With public WiFi, no matter how poor you are you can still access the internet. Its a weird time where even the homeless can access Facebook without even having to pay for a device

carlosjobim 3y ago
I don't want to pass judgement on another posters parents, even though you told your personal story here, so I'll answer your comment as best as I can with that in mind. You shouldn't be so eager to pass judgement on me either. You don't know me or my life. Poverty or a poor upbringing is not a badge of honour, but many people see it as such and maybe you've become accustomed to easily shutting up anybody by saying that they have no idea what it's like being poor. Okay, but how do you make progress from that? I stand by my point that if somebody can't pay a very small yearly fee for access to the content or service they want, then they weren't that interested. If you are so poor that you can't afford $10 per year, then you have much bigger problems than accessing some online content of interest. The goal for a person in that situation or somebody who wants to help them is to get out of poverty, not to cope. As for getting the devices for free, the same argument could be applied to online content: You can get information for free at a library, you can socialize with any friend by meeting in person. It's a less convenient experience than having it at home, but using a discarded device is also a less convenient experience. I find your arguments about "classism" a bit strange. Is it "classism" that some stuff is more expensive in the supermarket? Is it "classism" that the plumber charges his hourly fee to the poor as well as to the rich? That an iPhone costs a thousand dollars? Is it "classism" that an employer pays a wage that is much lower than what the worker produces? Yes! Is it "classism" that you have to indebt yourself for life to afford a home or pay rent for literally nothing? Yes! Is it classism that a large percentage of the population spend their whole life without ever having done anything productive, because they have unlimited taps for money taken as taxes from workers? Yes! But instead of being upset at those who are to blame for poverty, it is easier to direct that rage towards some internet poster like me, who dares to suggest that not everything should be free. Here are what I see as the options to have online services: 1. Current ad-fueled, spam-ridden content and social networks 2. Cheap paid content and social networks 3. Creators work for free, making content for your benefit without any reimbursement. After some time they burn out or can't afford the time it takes. 4. Pirating. Mainstream creators can take it, small time creators go broke. 5. You vote for communism so that content creators get paid by the government and everybody can benefit for free. The content will be what the communist government prefers for you to have. I prefer option 2.
- danjoredd 3y ago
  >Poverty or a poor upbringing is not a badge of honour, but many people see it as such and maybe you've become accustomed to easily shutting up anybody by saying that they have no idea what it's like being poor I don't view it as a badge of honor, but I know that its almost always privileged people that suggest locking the lower classes out of information. That pisses me off like nothing else. People are all for the poor until it comes down to actually finding solutions. >As for getting the devices for free, the same argument could be applied to online content Not particularly unless piracy gets involved. If we lock everything behind a paywall, going to the library or downloading information won't do jack. >I find your arguments about "classism" a bit strange. Is it "classism" that some stuff is more expensive in the supermarket? Is it "classism" that the plumber charges his hourly fee to the poor as well as to the rich? That an iPhone costs a thousand dollars? I am talking about information. Not physical goods. You are applying the logic of limited physical goods to online services that are virtually unlimited. Bandwidth is cheap. As for if #2 gets implemented, I guarantee you that this will not work. Paid content will not be cheap. Never has been and never will. In your other comments you bring up that you foresee services being a mere 10$ a year. The price hikes and predatory practices that online services have had prove that at best you are naive. If #2 happens, I fully support people doing #4. Now there are other options. Look at Coffeezilla on YouTube...doesn't run ads, but runs entirely off of donations. Other youtubers do the same thing. They set up a patreon, give benefits and incentives to do so, and for those that can't afford to support they watch for free. PBS had a similar thing going when analogue airwaves were legal for TV and still does to some extent with their streaming service. Some shows you have to pay for but the important stuff, such as newshour, are completely free for everyone to watch. For large scale digital projects, some features could be locked behind a paywall whereas the majority of content is free. That is how Discord makes its money. The ad/paid dichotomy does not exist...there are other options that allow people to freely access content and communicate with people in ways that normally they would not be able to afford.
  - carlosjobim 3y ago
    All I can say is try it yourself if you think donations is a good model. Unless you are huge like Coffezilla, you'll have a very hard time getting donations (or paid subscribers). People tend to fall into the content creator casino trap, since for every person who gets rich or manages to have a sustainable income for their work, there's 1000 who wastes a ton of effort without ever getting anywhere - even when the content is brilliant. It's kind of like Hollywood, a machine that eats dreams to make a few people stars and platform owners filthy rich on free labour. > If we lock everything behind a paywall, going to the library or downloading information won't do jack. Go to a library. You can find a whole bunch of paywalled newspapers and magazines to read for free there. Not to mention... books. > As for if #2 gets implemented, I guarantee you that this will not work. Paid content will not be cheap. Never has been and never will. In your other comments you bring up that you foresee services being a mere 10$ a year. You can get some excellent content for $10 per year, but a more normal price is around $50 per year - which is still dirt cheap. I chose $10 per year as an example, because that's the price point where people start complaining about how broke they are and can't they just have it for free. > I am talking about information. Not physical goods. You are applying the logic of limited physical goods to online services that are virtually unlimited. Bandwidth is cheap. This is the problem right here. The false assumption. People need to spend a whole lot of time and effort and usually also money to create content and information. They need to get paid, they need to sustain themselves. Or you'll just have some hobby bloggers writing about their Raspberry Pi. Why don't you apply this argument to a restaurant? The ingredients in your meal are cheap, so why should you pay for your meal? Since the labour of the people making and serving apparently has no value. Why aren't Ubers just the cost of gas? Etc. If small time content creators can't get paid, they'll do something else. That content will not exist to pirate. You will only have ad- and scam-fueled mainstream content. I suspect your answer is probably "Good, fuck them!", but I think that's an unnecessary loss for the world and human knowledge.

carlosjobim 3y ago

I don't want to pass judgement on another posters parents, even though you told your personal story here, so I'll answer your comment as best as I can with that in mind. You shouldn't be so eager to pass judgement on me either. You don't know me or my life. Poverty or a poor upbringing is not a badge of honour, but many people see it as such and maybe you've become accustomed to easily shutting up anybody by saying that they have no idea what it's like being poor. Okay, but how do you make progress from that? I stand by my point that if somebody can't pay a very small yearly fee for access to the content or service they want, then they weren't that interested. If you are so poor that you can't afford $10 per year, then you have much bigger problems than accessing some online content of interest. The goal for a person in that situation or somebody who wants to help them is to get out of poverty, not to cope. As for getting the devices for free, the same argument could be applied to online content: You can get information for free at a library, you can socialize with any friend by meeting in person. It's a less convenient experience than having it at home, but using a discarded device is also a less convenient experience. I find your arguments about "classism" a bit strange. Is it "classism" that some stuff is more expensive in the supermarket? Is it "classism" that the plumber charges his hourly fee to the poor as well as to the rich? That an iPhone costs a thousand dollars? Is it "classism" that an employer pays a wage that is much lower than what the worker produces? Yes! Is it "classism" that you have to indebt yourself for life to afford a home or pay rent for literally nothing? Yes! Is it classism that a large percentage of the population spend their whole life without ever having done anything productive, because they have unlimited taps for money taken as taxes from workers? Yes! But instead of being upset at those who are to blame for poverty, it is easier to direct that rage towards some internet poster like me, who dares to suggest that not everything should be free. Here are what I see as the options to have online services: 1. Current ad-fueled, spam-ridden content and social networks 2. Cheap paid content and social networks 3. Creators work for free, making content for your benefit without any reimbursement. After some time they burn out or can't afford the time it takes. 4. Pirating. Mainstream creators can take it, small time creators go broke. 5. You vote for communism so that content creators get paid by the government and everybody can benefit for free. The content will be what the communist government prefers for you to have. I prefer option 2.

danjoredd 3y ago
>Poverty or a poor upbringing is not a badge of honour, but many people see it as such and maybe you've become accustomed to easily shutting up anybody by saying that they have no idea what it's like being poor I don't view it as a badge of honor, but I know that its almost always privileged people that suggest locking the lower classes out of information. That pisses me off like nothing else. People are all for the poor until it comes down to actually finding solutions. >As for getting the devices for free, the same argument could be applied to online content Not particularly unless piracy gets involved. If we lock everything behind a paywall, going to the library or downloading information won't do jack. >I find your arguments about "classism" a bit strange. Is it "classism" that some stuff is more expensive in the supermarket? Is it "classism" that the plumber charges his hourly fee to the poor as well as to the rich? That an iPhone costs a thousand dollars? I am talking about information. Not physical goods. You are applying the logic of limited physical goods to online services that are virtually unlimited. Bandwidth is cheap. As for if #2 gets implemented, I guarantee you that this will not work. Paid content will not be cheap. Never has been and never will. In your other comments you bring up that you foresee services being a mere 10$ a year. The price hikes and predatory practices that online services have had prove that at best you are naive. If #2 happens, I fully support people doing #4. Now there are other options. Look at Coffeezilla on YouTube...doesn't run ads, but runs entirely off of donations. Other youtubers do the same thing. They set up a patreon, give benefits and incentives to do so, and for those that can't afford to support they watch for free. PBS had a similar thing going when analogue airwaves were legal for TV and still does to some extent with their streaming service. Some shows you have to pay for but the important stuff, such as newshour, are completely free for everyone to watch. For large scale digital projects, some features could be locked behind a paywall whereas the majority of content is free. That is how Discord makes its money. The ad/paid dichotomy does not exist...there are other options that allow people to freely access content and communicate with people in ways that normally they would not be able to afford.
- carlosjobim 3y ago
  All I can say is try it yourself if you think donations is a good model. Unless you are huge like Coffezilla, you'll have a very hard time getting donations (or paid subscribers). People tend to fall into the content creator casino trap, since for every person who gets rich or manages to have a sustainable income for their work, there's 1000 who wastes a ton of effort without ever getting anywhere - even when the content is brilliant. It's kind of like Hollywood, a machine that eats dreams to make a few people stars and platform owners filthy rich on free labour. > If we lock everything behind a paywall, going to the library or downloading information won't do jack. Go to a library. You can find a whole bunch of paywalled newspapers and magazines to read for free there. Not to mention... books. > As for if #2 gets implemented, I guarantee you that this will not work. Paid content will not be cheap. Never has been and never will. In your other comments you bring up that you foresee services being a mere 10$ a year. You can get some excellent content for $10 per year, but a more normal price is around $50 per year - which is still dirt cheap. I chose $10 per year as an example, because that's the price point where people start complaining about how broke they are and can't they just have it for free. > I am talking about information. Not physical goods. You are applying the logic of limited physical goods to online services that are virtually unlimited. Bandwidth is cheap. This is the problem right here. The false assumption. People need to spend a whole lot of time and effort and usually also money to create content and information. They need to get paid, they need to sustain themselves. Or you'll just have some hobby bloggers writing about their Raspberry Pi. Why don't you apply this argument to a restaurant? The ingredients in your meal are cheap, so why should you pay for your meal? Since the labour of the people making and serving apparently has no value. Why aren't Ubers just the cost of gas? Etc. If small time content creators can't get paid, they'll do something else. That content will not exist to pirate. You will only have ad- and scam-fueled mainstream content. I suspect your answer is probably "Good, fuck them!", but I think that's an unnecessary loss for the world and human knowledge.