4 ms·

I agree with everthing you said, but again, contextually users aren't doing any "work". That is the distinction I'm trying to draw. You are less like a serf and

I agree with everthing you said, but again, contextually users aren't doing any "work". That is the distinction I'm trying to draw. You are less like a serf and more like a thief victim, making the writers comparisons quite stretched by definition. We could be discussing these problems straight-forward as you have described them instead of trying to make it sound like skynet has turned us into actual slaves and selling people on 24 news-cycle style dystopia bait.

beepbooptheory 3y ago
Many/most economists and historians find it beneficial to understand things not by rigid or otherwise static categories and concepts, but through relations. Feudalism, insofar as it can be defined (and this is hard[1]), is probably best captured as a certain kind of relation between serfs and landlords (or whatever). Focusing on the relations between things is fruitful for analysis and research as well as being resistant to changes or transpositions in the terms in question. It would be much harder to say that there is this one selfsame phenomena called "work" and we have done it throughout all of history. Or that we are definitely not "working" as we generate another's capital by getting brainwashed and depressed by social media. Or that the peasants living off their lord "went to work" everyday. 1. https://www.thoughtco.com/the-f-word-feudalism-1788836 https://www.thoughtco.com/the-f-word-feudalism-1788836
- yamazakiwi 3y ago
  You are right, it is easier to write utilizing few relations instead of trying to manipulate static categories and concepts that don't bend to your will. To me this is a signal of quality but I could see benefits to writing this way, such as, if your goal was to get more people talking about the issue proposed. There are also potential downsides to writing this way, especially if you actually care about solving these problems and are at the mercy of governmental and capatilistic systems vs selling a book (Not saying that's what this economist is doing). I agree that the definition of "work" has changed over time and I'm not trying to be pedantic so let's get to the point, does it matter if it's considered work or not? The real issue most people would agree with is the bad guys are extracting tons of value through the actions of their users. Should those users be paid? The answer is: it depends. In our current system we would create an organization that can generate money by holding the tech companies responsible to pay users when it is deemed to do so. Unfortunately I don't see the money amounting to very much unless laws change drastically since even class-action lawsuits for leaked data provide very little. I'm guessing that measuring "phone work" would amount to micro-cents regardless of value directly generated.

beepbooptheory 3y ago

Many/most economists and historians find it beneficial to understand things not by rigid or otherwise static categories and concepts, but through relations. Feudalism, insofar as it can be defined (and this is hard[1]), is probably best captured as a certain kind of relation between serfs and landlords (or whatever). Focusing on the relations between things is fruitful for analysis and research as well as being resistant to changes or transpositions in the terms in question. It would be much harder to say that there is this one selfsame phenomena called "work" and we have done it throughout all of history. Or that we are definitely not "working" as we generate another's capital by getting brainwashed and depressed by social media. Or that the peasants living off their lord "went to work" everyday. 1. https://www.thoughtco.com/the-f-word-feudalism-1788836 https://www.thoughtco.com/the-f-word-feudalism-1788836

yamazakiwi 3y ago
You are right, it is easier to write utilizing few relations instead of trying to manipulate static categories and concepts that don't bend to your will. To me this is a signal of quality but I could see benefits to writing this way, such as, if your goal was to get more people talking about the issue proposed. There are also potential downsides to writing this way, especially if you actually care about solving these problems and are at the mercy of governmental and capatilistic systems vs selling a book (Not saying that's what this economist is doing). I agree that the definition of "work" has changed over time and I'm not trying to be pedantic so let's get to the point, does it matter if it's considered work or not? The real issue most people would agree with is the bad guys are extracting tons of value through the actions of their users. Should those users be paid? The answer is: it depends. In our current system we would create an organization that can generate money by holding the tech companies responsible to pay users when it is deemed to do so. Unfortunately I don't see the money amounting to very much unless laws change drastically since even class-action lawsuits for leaked data provide very little. I'm guessing that measuring "phone work" would amount to micro-cents regardless of value directly generated.