4 ms·

if information about disasters is “content,” then the correct answer is “everyone.”

kennywinker 3y ago
It costs money to gather information, send reporters + photographers places, etc. rent seeking is wanting to be paid for no new work, not wanting to be paid for work that is in the public interest.
- three3 3y ago
  Well, Facebook already blocked sharing news, so... Where's the rent seeking?
  - kennywinker 3y ago
    Fb killed most of the previous forms of media that people would have turned to for this news. But now facebook will sell us the solution, but only if we don’t regulate them in any way. Sounds fair?
    - three3 3y ago
      [dead]
- catchnear4321 3y ago
  the content was already created. posting it to facebook is an optional means of distribution. no, i wont consider posting the article to be work. > rent seeking is wanting to be paid for no new work which if it weren’t information about disasters, most people wouldn’t care about too much. posting or hosting, once the article is written, it’s all rent seeking.
  - kennywinker 3y ago
    > posting or hosting, once the article is written, it’s all rent seeking. That almost makes sense in a non-digitized world. I.e. It’s not rent seeking to sell newspapers, because each newspaper costs money and takes work to make - but in a digitized world, you’re essentially saying any profiting off content is “rent seeking”. Like if I make a video course teaching a skill and I try to sell it, that’s rent seeking? Seems like that waters the concept of rent seeking down to the point of uselessness.
    - catchnear4321 3y ago
      it’s not rent seeking for the original creator to sell content direct to a consumer. if you wish to carry this further from the initial point, you do so without me.
      - kennywinker 3y ago
        > it’s not rent seeking for the original creator to sell content direct to a consumer. So it’s rent seeking for the original creator to post it for free and sell ads against it? And what’s with this “original creator” language? Does that only apply to the author, or can the company that paid the author to create it sell it without being rent-seekers? My point is: you called fb and news producers both rent seekers, and i don’t believe they both are unless you use a overly broad to the point of useless definition of rent-seeking.
        paulmd 3y ago
        Profiting from content production is obviously not rent seeking, but this is currently coupled to content distribution which is absolutely rent-seeking. You’re charging money for something that costs nothing to distribute, what else would it be? That’s a rent absolutely. It is a rent that secures the production aspect, but we could also have patronage models that fund the creation separately. If your game is kickstarted or you get a monthly donation to produce a video there is no need to profit from creating artificial scarcity in the distribution.

It costs money to gather information, send reporters + photographers places, etc. rent seeking is wanting to be paid for no new work, not wanting to be paid for work that is in the public interest.

three3 3y ago
Well, Facebook already blocked sharing news, so... Where's the rent seeking?
- kennywinker 3y ago
  Fb killed most of the previous forms of media that people would have turned to for this news. But now facebook will sell us the solution, but only if we don’t regulate them in any way. Sounds fair?
  - three3 3y ago
    [dead]
catchnear4321 3y ago
the content was already created. posting it to facebook is an optional means of distribution. no, i wont consider posting the article to be work. > rent seeking is wanting to be paid for no new work which if it weren’t information about disasters, most people wouldn’t care about too much. posting or hosting, once the article is written, it’s all rent seeking.
- kennywinker 3y ago
  > posting or hosting, once the article is written, it’s all rent seeking. That almost makes sense in a non-digitized world. I.e. It’s not rent seeking to sell newspapers, because each newspaper costs money and takes work to make - but in a digitized world, you’re essentially saying any profiting off content is “rent seeking”. Like if I make a video course teaching a skill and I try to sell it, that’s rent seeking? Seems like that waters the concept of rent seeking down to the point of uselessness.
  - catchnear4321 3y ago
    it’s not rent seeking for the original creator to sell content direct to a consumer. if you wish to carry this further from the initial point, you do so without me.
    - kennywinker 3y ago
      > it’s not rent seeking for the original creator to sell content direct to a consumer. So it’s rent seeking for the original creator to post it for free and sell ads against it? And what’s with this “original creator” language? Does that only apply to the author, or can the company that paid the author to create it sell it without being rent-seekers? My point is: you called fb and news producers both rent seekers, and i don’t believe they both are unless you use a overly broad to the point of useless definition of rent-seeking.
      - paulmd 3y ago
        Profiting from content production is obviously not rent seeking, but this is currently coupled to content distribution which is absolutely rent-seeking. You’re charging money for something that costs nothing to distribute, what else would it be? That’s a rent absolutely. It is a rent that secures the production aspect, but we could also have patronage models that fund the creation separately. If your game is kickstarted or you get a monthly donation to produce a video there is no need to profit from creating artificial scarcity in the distribution.