3 ms·

Why would the poor not be able to afford human generated content? Copying human generated context costs basically nothing, so the marginal cost of letting the p

Why would the poor not be able to afford human generated content? Copying human generated context costs basically nothing, so the marginal cost of letting the poor view it is basically nothing.

fluidcruft 3y ago
Creating human-generated content will cost a lot more, so it will be paywalled. This pattern already exists, limitless machine crap will just make the differential greater.
- octacat 3y ago
  Kinda interesting that facebook is switching from "real people" generated content (i.e. someone you more or less know) to "random crap" content (not even the tiktok algo). It is like shooting themself into a leg.
  - fluidcruft 3y ago
    I'm reminded of the whole story behind * https://coconuts.co/bangkok/features/primitive-technology-and-the-bizarre-depths-of-youtube-in-southeast-asia-part-1/ https://coconuts.co/bangkok/features/primitive-technology-an... * https://coconuts.co/bangkok/features/primitive-technology-youtube-pulls-plug-on-kid-vids-after-coconuts-expose-we-visit-a-shoot-in-cambodia-part-2/ https://coconuts.co/bangkok/features/primitive-technology-yo... People just make content that get views and optimize what gets eyeballs. Take people out of the equation and add gradient descent and who knows what insanity will be unleashed.
selcuka 3y ago
> Why would the poor not be able to afford human generated content? Because, why not? It's called segmentation. > Copying human generated context costs basically nothing, so the marginal cost of letting the poor view it is basically nothing. How do you explain why more recent movies are more expensive to buy or rent on streaming services, then?
- bayindirh 3y ago
  > How do you explain why more recent movies are more expensive to buy or rent on streaming services, then? Artificial price inflation and recouping costs combined. Fueled by FOMO, people tend to pay more to be able to access it and be up-to-date (TM) in their social circles. They'll probably recoup the costs without inflated prices, but if they can exploit that title for more money, they'll do it.
nkrisc 3y ago
> the marginal cost of letting the poor view it is basically nothing. That’s why all kinds of products today with nearly zero marginal cost are free?
- ben_w 3y ago
  Yup. I'm old enough to remember when operating systems cost money[0]. And compliers. And encyclopaedias. And maps. I've got too much good zero-cost audio and video content to get through, even at double speed. [0] MacOS 8, I don't remember what I spent on it (UK), but wikipedia says it cost $99 in the US when it came out in 1997. Inflation adjusted, $188.56 today.
montroser 3y ago
Because you have to pay those humans their royalties when their content is consumed.

Why would the poor not be able to afford human generated content? Copying human generated context costs basically nothing, so the marginal cost of letting the poor view it is basically nothing.

fluidcruft 3y ago

Creating human-generated content will cost a lot more, so it will be paywalled. This pattern already exists, limitless machine crap will just make the differential greater.

octacat 3y ago
Kinda interesting that facebook is switching from "real people" generated content (i.e. someone you more or less know) to "random crap" content (not even the tiktok algo). It is like shooting themself into a leg.
- fluidcruft 3y ago
  I'm reminded of the whole story behind * https://coconuts.co/bangkok/features/primitive-technology-and-the-bizarre-depths-of-youtube-in-southeast-asia-part-1/ https://coconuts.co/bangkok/features/primitive-technology-an... * https://coconuts.co/bangkok/features/primitive-technology-youtube-pulls-plug-on-kid-vids-after-coconuts-expose-we-visit-a-shoot-in-cambodia-part-2/ https://coconuts.co/bangkok/features/primitive-technology-yo... People just make content that get views and optimize what gets eyeballs. Take people out of the equation and add gradient descent and who knows what insanity will be unleashed.

selcuka 3y ago

> Why would the poor not be able to afford human generated content? Because, why not? It's called segmentation. > Copying human generated context costs basically nothing, so the marginal cost of letting the poor view it is basically nothing. How do you explain why more recent movies are more expensive to buy or rent on streaming services, then?

bayindirh 3y ago
> How do you explain why more recent movies are more expensive to buy or rent on streaming services, then? Artificial price inflation and recouping costs combined. Fueled by FOMO, people tend to pay more to be able to access it and be up-to-date (TM) in their social circles. They'll probably recoup the costs without inflated prices, but if they can exploit that title for more money, they'll do it.

nkrisc 3y ago

> the marginal cost of letting the poor view it is basically nothing. That’s why all kinds of products today with nearly zero marginal cost are free?

ben_w 3y ago
Yup. I'm old enough to remember when operating systems cost money[0]. And compliers. And encyclopaedias. And maps. I've got too much good zero-cost audio and video content to get through, even at double speed. [0] MacOS 8, I don't remember what I spent on it (UK), but wikipedia says it cost $99 in the US when it came out in 1997. Inflation adjusted, $188.56 today.

montroser 3y ago

Because you have to pay those humans their royalties when their content is consumed.