6 ms·
The point is that they no longer have a choice not to enrich profit-seeking companies with their unpaid labor, because by posting to those sites, you're generat
by rideontime 3y ago
The point is that they no longer have a choice not to enrich profit-seeking companies with their unpaid labor, because by posting to those sites, you're generating the content they place their ads beside. And then pointing out that at least with social media, they had a choice in the matter, while AI scrapers just take it, wherever they might have posted it.
- csallen 3y agoWhy is the author so concerned about enriching profit-seeking companies?
- rideontime 3y agoFixed, should have specified "unpaid labor." Hopefully that makes it clear.
- csallen 3y agoGoing out of your way to voluntarily choose to post your work on the internet, and on social media specifically, in order to market yourself and connect with new readers, is unpaid labor? No it's not. It's being sour that you live in an interconnected world where others might find a way to benefit as a side effect of your own efforts.
- rideontime 3y agoThat's your opinion; the creator of the comic disagrees.
- csallen 3y agoOf course these are just opinions. It just doesn't seem like a perspective that's serving them well, except to make them feel bad about the art that they've been putting out… in the same way… for years and years… unchanged… with no tangible new issues for them or their readers… except the optional sadness that comes from this optional choice to be upset that other people are making money.
- rideontime 3y agoIf you can't understand why somebody would "choose" to be upset that they're struggling to subsist while a company worth billions is using their labor without compensation to generate revenue, you're not worth discussing this with.
- csallen 3y agoI understand it. It's called jealousy. Their struggle to subsist has literally nothing to do with this other party's profits. By their own admission, their struggle to subsist was a choice. It was a choice they made before these social media companies even existed. And they deliberately chose to continue with the same poorly-performing model that didn't make money, because they preferred doing it that way. And now they are sad that others have not made that same choice, and are making money.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- rideontime 3y agoWhy do you keep leaving out the part where the "others" are making their money using the unpaid labor of this artist and many, many others, without compensating them for it? Are you seriously suggesting that this artist should stop expressing their upset because they have the option to build a plagiarism machine instead?
- twism 3y agogoing to take some HN karma hit for this but i just don't get it. the price of anything you sell (or do not wish to give away for free) is not how much it cost to build but how much someone else is willing to pay for it. If you think the work is so great. charge for it. let the market decide. i think twitter/x does this now somewhat. how is this not similar to thinking google owes me money because my tweet appeared in their search results?
- rideontime 3y agoYou seem to be missing the point. The artist has already compromised their personal ethics by choosing to post their work to social media. Now, with AI, they don't even have a choice in the matter.
- twism 3y agonobody is forced to post to social media
- rideontime 3y ago"And now even that nominal opt-in option is gone. They just take it."
- twism 3y agoyou've given it to them
- rideontime 3y agoMuch in the same way I've "given" my wallet to a thief by leaving it my unlocked car.
- twism 3y agohow is posting something in public space analogous to leaving an item in an unlocked car where either you either did not mean to leave it there and/or leave the car unlocked?