7 ms·

> How do you think that the video content is going to be stored and served if not through paid infrastructure? Secondary doesn't mean nonexistent, it comes aft

> How do you think that the video content is going to be stored and served if not through paid infrastructure? Secondary doesn't mean nonexistent, it comes after the primary thing, content creation. When the Internet was younger, people willingly paid for privilege of sharing content. Creation was the primary motivation; costs were a secondary concern. I think it resulted in more and better communities than today, where people pull out all the stops to rake in the dough as the primary means of earning money.

LunaSea 2y ago
> When the Internet was younger, people willingly paid for privilege of sharing content. Creation was the primary motivation; costs were a secondary concern. I think it resulted in more and better communities than today, where people pull out all the stops to rake in the dough as the primary means of earning money. Yes and on this young Internet your site had 100 views, mostly from people close by. The content shared was mostly text and a small amount of images. Video and audio were largely non-existant. > I think it resulted in more and better communities than today, where people pull out all the stops to rake in the dough as the primary means of earning money. You're describing hobby content creators which didn't have the volume and quality of individual content creators nowadays.
- nottorp 2y ago
  > which didn't have the volume agreed > and quality filming with an 8k camera doesn't mean quality though, it just means more production/hosting costs...
  - cassianoleal 2y ago
    Agree. Production quality != overall quality. I'd much rather have great content badly produced than professionally produced crap.
    - LunaSea 2y ago
      Most people still seem to watch Hollywood quality movies so I don't know if your taste is very representative.
      - nottorp 2y ago
        High sales != quality. Maybe high sales ~= lowest common denominator?
        LunaSea 2y ago
        High sales doesn't mean quality but it does reflect the choice of the majority. So if we were to move to a world where high quality productions were not feasible anymore for some reason or another then by definition most people would find this to be a problem.
        nottorp 2y ago
        No, I think the majority would just take what they're given. Most "content" is "consumed" just to have something to do.
      - kjkjadksj 2y ago
        Would they watch so many if they weren’t available at every movie theater in town and every streaming service on earth? A lot of attention has been devoted to such movies that would have been invested elsewhere in other efforts if movies didn’t exist.
      - cassianoleal 2y ago
        If by Hollywood quality you mean that it's professionally produced to a high standard (of production, of course), than I don't see what's bad about that. I only said I value content quality much more than production quality. Great content produced to a high standard is better than the same content badly produced. There are some great movies out of Hollywood.
  - LunaSea 2y ago
    > filming with an 8k camera doesn't mean quality though, it just means more production/hosting costs... Quality is also a factor of time which unpaid people usually do not have enough of.
- raxxorraxor 2y ago
  I would argue that the average quality was higher by a few magnitudes due to the higher entry barrier alone. The average production value is higher these days, but that doesn't correlate with quality too much. Simple truth is that hobbyists, enthusiasts and professionals are often one and the same people. There was also always a way to accommodate a large amount of users through mirrors and other channels, which people shared frequently. With "the web" they meant their business idea for their specific platform isn't viable without advertisers exploiting user data to the largest degree possible. That is something entirely different. On if they just paywalled the content, people would probably again use alternatives. Of course I didn't mean to say that infrastructure costs are negligible. On the contrary, it is the largest expense for certain platforms and services. But if a platform has advertising as a business model, it is not on my browser to accommodate that. Then they need to let someone else fill the space they cannot serve without manipulating my user agent. I do even approve of platforms enabling some creators to make a living with online content creation. But I am still not interested to accommodate advertisers. It is a toxic industry that strives on exploiting users and their privacy. There is no sensible means of cooperation possible and I want my browser have realistic perspective here.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> When the Internet was younger, people willingly paid for privilege of sharing content This silences a large number of people and communities who can’t afford that privilege. Not saying that’s inherently bad. But it’s worth weighing in the moral calculus.
- lagniappe 2y ago
  Posting video on someone else's hardware is not a human right.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > Posting video on someone else's hardware is not a human right Straw man. Nobody in this thread argued it is.
  - exe34 2y ago
    has anybody tried to argue this here? who are you replying to?
- Intralexical 2y ago
  That's the general problem of economic inequality, though. It's not specific to the Internet. Disadvantaged groups will already have less free time to share content, less exposure to the technical skills needed to do so, less attention, respect, and opportunity from doing so, etc. Advertising places a fig leaf over unequal access, but really makes the inequality worse by centralizing wealth and control in the hands of a few rent-seeking operations.
  - LunaSea 2y ago
    > That's the general problem of economic inequality, though. It's not specific to the Internet. Yes, but advertisement showed that it wasn't a structural limitation and that other options were available. Even if said options themselves had downsides.
    - 2y ago

LunaSea 2y ago

> When the Internet was younger, people willingly paid for privilege of sharing content. Creation was the primary motivation; costs were a secondary concern. I think it resulted in more and better communities than today, where people pull out all the stops to rake in the dough as the primary means of earning money. Yes and on this young Internet your site had 100 views, mostly from people close by. The content shared was mostly text and a small amount of images. Video and audio were largely non-existant. > I think it resulted in more and better communities than today, where people pull out all the stops to rake in the dough as the primary means of earning money. You're describing hobby content creators which didn't have the volume and quality of individual content creators nowadays.

nottorp 2y ago
> which didn't have the volume agreed > and quality filming with an 8k camera doesn't mean quality though, it just means more production/hosting costs...
- cassianoleal 2y ago
  Agree. Production quality != overall quality. I'd much rather have great content badly produced than professionally produced crap.
  - LunaSea 2y ago
    Most people still seem to watch Hollywood quality movies so I don't know if your taste is very representative.
    - nottorp 2y ago
      High sales != quality. Maybe high sales ~= lowest common denominator?
      - LunaSea 2y ago
        High sales doesn't mean quality but it does reflect the choice of the majority. So if we were to move to a world where high quality productions were not feasible anymore for some reason or another then by definition most people would find this to be a problem.
        nottorp 2y ago
        No, I think the majority would just take what they're given. Most "content" is "consumed" just to have something to do.
    - kjkjadksj 2y ago
      Would they watch so many if they weren’t available at every movie theater in town and every streaming service on earth? A lot of attention has been devoted to such movies that would have been invested elsewhere in other efforts if movies didn’t exist.
    - cassianoleal 2y ago
      If by Hollywood quality you mean that it's professionally produced to a high standard (of production, of course), than I don't see what's bad about that. I only said I value content quality much more than production quality. Great content produced to a high standard is better than the same content badly produced. There are some great movies out of Hollywood.
- LunaSea 2y ago
  > filming with an 8k camera doesn't mean quality though, it just means more production/hosting costs... Quality is also a factor of time which unpaid people usually do not have enough of.
raxxorraxor 2y ago
I would argue that the average quality was higher by a few magnitudes due to the higher entry barrier alone. The average production value is higher these days, but that doesn't correlate with quality too much. Simple truth is that hobbyists, enthusiasts and professionals are often one and the same people. There was also always a way to accommodate a large amount of users through mirrors and other channels, which people shared frequently. With "the web" they meant their business idea for their specific platform isn't viable without advertisers exploiting user data to the largest degree possible. That is something entirely different. On if they just paywalled the content, people would probably again use alternatives. Of course I didn't mean to say that infrastructure costs are negligible. On the contrary, it is the largest expense for certain platforms and services. But if a platform has advertising as a business model, it is not on my browser to accommodate that. Then they need to let someone else fill the space they cannot serve without manipulating my user agent. I do even approve of platforms enabling some creators to make a living with online content creation. But I am still not interested to accommodate advertisers. It is a toxic industry that strives on exploiting users and their privacy. There is no sensible means of cooperation possible and I want my browser have realistic perspective here.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> When the Internet was younger, people willingly paid for privilege of sharing content This silences a large number of people and communities who can’t afford that privilege. Not saying that’s inherently bad. But it’s worth weighing in the moral calculus.

lagniappe 2y ago
Posting video on someone else's hardware is not a human right.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > Posting video on someone else's hardware is not a human right Straw man. Nobody in this thread argued it is.
- exe34 2y ago
  has anybody tried to argue this here? who are you replying to?
Intralexical 2y ago
That's the general problem of economic inequality, though. It's not specific to the Internet. Disadvantaged groups will already have less free time to share content, less exposure to the technical skills needed to do so, less attention, respect, and opportunity from doing so, etc. Advertising places a fig leaf over unequal access, but really makes the inequality worse by centralizing wealth and control in the hands of a few rent-seeking operations.
- LunaSea 2y ago
  > That's the general problem of economic inequality, though. It's not specific to the Internet. Yes, but advertisement showed that it wasn't a structural limitation and that other options were available. Even if said options themselves had downsides.
  - 2y ago