4 ms·

You're arguing that speech should earn a living, which sounds like asserting everyone has the right to patronage. Just as most musicians or artists have to hav

You're arguing that speech should earn a living, which sounds like asserting everyone has the right to patronage. Just as most musicians or artists have to have a day job, so do most authors when they start. That's been true even for "political" speech: for about as long as people have had things to say, forms of self-subsidized pamphleteering have existed. In the 1990s, hobbyists were most of the web, enough to be able to kickstart a wikipedia. Self-publishing still works today, thanks to platforms like ghost.org at $9/month that also give an onramp from free to patronage.

PhasmaFelis 2y ago
> You're arguing that speech should earn a living I'm saying it sucks that the majority of periodical writing has succumbed to race-to-the-bottom clickbait and adflooding. Newspapers and magazines from three decades ago certainly weren't perfect, but on average they were a whole lot better than modern news sites, and I don't see how we can ever get back to that situation. I don't know what the solution is, but I can see a problem when it's punching me in the face.