4 ms·

> The tragedy of the commons more commonly refers to resources that can be consumed/destroyed. Physical space and access are both resources. Two objects can't

> The tragedy of the commons more commonly refers to resources that can be consumed/destroyed. Physical space and access are both resources. Two objects can't occupy the same physical space. Access is provided on a first come, first served basis. > Otherwise using any resource at all is a tragedy of the commons. When one person using the resource, even temporarily, deprives another of using it, then we are in similar, but obviously not identical, territory. Critically, since we CANNOT increase the amount of space for photographers on the site, we face the same _immediate consequences_ as the given example. If we didn't then this article would not exist and we would not be having this discussion.

stavros 2y ago
Again, that's not what a tragedy of the commons is. Temporarily using a finite resource isn't a tragedy of the commons. It's just usage.
- akira2501 2y ago
  That's precisely what it is. The definition has an origin which you are rather parochially clinging to. The term has definitely been broadened to include an entire class of similar social dilemmas, examples of which abound, including my original comparison.
michaelmrose 2y ago
You are just using the term incorrectly the same way people try to wield logical fallacies as if they are a spell in Harry Potter as if naming the argument obviates the need to make the argument now you scramble to hold the position. Not having enough of something isn't a tragedy. It would be a tragedy if people with a pop up T-shirt site prevented actual journalism for lack of resources but we have no reason to believe that is so and that is prevented by giving priority to those affiliated with actual publications ahead of bloggers and capping total cameras. The solution doesn't make sense even if the tragedy were real
- akira2501 2y ago
  You are presuming the term has a singular definition and that everyone is in agreement about it. This precise disagreement occurs in plenty of other circles. I happen to be with the camp that suggests that "finite" in "finite resources" does not imply definiteness and temporary exhaustion which occurs on a regular schedule might in fact qualify. Is why the idea of "The Tragedy of the Digital Commons" actually exists and is openly debated. I'm sorry you and so many choose to ignore this and insist the conversation stick to terms defined a century ago. When the original idea from antiquity is broad enough to encompass the very simple notion I put forward. "That which is common to the greatest number gets the least amount of care. Men pay most attention to what is their own: they care less for what is common." - Aristotle
  - michaelmrose 2y ago
    The tragedy of the commons is the tendency of groups of individuals to make poor usage of common goods to everyones detriment due to the diffuse nature of collective responsibility and greed. There is no tragedy as of yet as far as anyone has asserted by any definition and certainly not one of the Commons given the space has a singular steward who manages use and conditions of access.

stavros 2y ago

Again, that's not what a tragedy of the commons is. Temporarily using a finite resource isn't a tragedy of the commons. It's just usage.

akira2501 2y ago
That's precisely what it is. The definition has an origin which you are rather parochially clinging to. The term has definitely been broadened to include an entire class of similar social dilemmas, examples of which abound, including my original comparison.

michaelmrose 2y ago

You are just using the term incorrectly the same way people try to wield logical fallacies as if they are a spell in Harry Potter as if naming the argument obviates the need to make the argument now you scramble to hold the position. Not having enough of something isn't a tragedy. It would be a tragedy if people with a pop up T-shirt site prevented actual journalism for lack of resources but we have no reason to believe that is so and that is prevented by giving priority to those affiliated with actual publications ahead of bloggers and capping total cameras. The solution doesn't make sense even if the tragedy were real

akira2501 2y ago
You are presuming the term has a singular definition and that everyone is in agreement about it. This precise disagreement occurs in plenty of other circles. I happen to be with the camp that suggests that "finite" in "finite resources" does not imply definiteness and temporary exhaustion which occurs on a regular schedule might in fact qualify. Is why the idea of "The Tragedy of the Digital Commons" actually exists and is openly debated. I'm sorry you and so many choose to ignore this and insist the conversation stick to terms defined a century ago. When the original idea from antiquity is broad enough to encompass the very simple notion I put forward. "That which is common to the greatest number gets the least amount of care. Men pay most attention to what is their own: they care less for what is common." - Aristotle
- michaelmrose 2y ago
  The tragedy of the commons is the tendency of groups of individuals to make poor usage of common goods to everyones detriment due to the diffuse nature of collective responsibility and greed. There is no tragedy as of yet as far as anyone has asserted by any definition and certainly not one of the Commons given the space has a singular steward who manages use and conditions of access.