4 ms·

> What are your thoughts, Dear Reader? Honestly? Like you wrote, everything's going to be copied anyway, better don't let it cause frustration. It's just infor

> What are your thoughts, Dear Reader? Honestly? Like you wrote, everything's going to be copied anyway, better don't let it cause frustration. It's just information, something we've never controlled successfully before the digital age and haven't given up trying to control on the web yet. If we didn't try to (pointlessly really) fight over attention from search engines and revenue from annoying ads where we ought to put our content, it wouldn't be such a big issue and the world would probably a better place if people published stuff because they thought it would matter to do so, not for ad revenue.

jeremysmyth 13y ago
the world would probably a better place if people published stuff because they thought it would matter to do so, not for ad revenue 1: How much of the content you read every day is created by people who are paid to do it? (many links on HN go to articles by paid reporters on news sites, or are commentary on such articles by amateur bloggers) 2: How much of the content you rely on every day that isn't paid-for content costs an absolute fortune to maintain and would disappear if there wasn't a corporate backer and/or financial incentive? (like Facebook, Twitter, Stack Overflow) My internet would quickly become a very small and geocities-like place.
- lazyjones 13y ago
  I have no idea how much of the content I read is paid for (and how). A large part of it is certainly summaries written by people who aren't paid to do so (copied, digested and filtered for me). > My internet would quickly become a very small and geocities-like place. It's funny that you named FB, Twitter and SO as important sources of content you "rely on every day". Who actually writes the content and who gets paid for it? Do you really think it's impossible to get the same amount and quality of content from the same people without some (sometimes evil) corporate entity provding servers and bandwidth? (think P2P)
  - jeremysmyth 13y ago
    Do you really think it's impossible to get the same amount and quality of content from the same people without some (sometimes evil) corporate entity provding servers and bandwidth? (think P2P) Sounds like begging the question and reacting to a point I wasn't making, so let me answer a question you're not asking by asking a question you may not answer: Are there any such communities today? Your question seems to imply that you believe such communities are possible. Technologically I have no doubt that that's true. Hey, many BBSs were created, run, staffed, maintained by volunteers back in the day. Large swathes of the original web were created by universities without profit. However, technology isn't the whole story. In order for things to shift where it's likely "to get the same amount and quality of content from the same people" (this point assumes a site with the breadth and universality of Facebook), the world would have to change to such an extent that those people couldn't (or for whatever reason wouldn't) use Facebook, Twitter, Stack Overflow. That world simply does not exist today. To beg the question again, do you think my mother (who counts as one of the same people whose content I'm interested in, and by extent my analogy includes anyone's mother) would happily use bittorrent-based systems tomorrow to replace her use of Facebook today?
    - lazyjones 13y ago
      > Are there any such communities today? Yes, there's Wikipedia and there are IRC channels (and to some extent still, Usenet). > [...]the world would have to change to such an extent that those people couldn't (or for whatever reason wouldn't) use Facebook, Twitter, Stack Overflow. That world simply does not exist today. Why would the world have to change? Did it have to change for FB to exist and siphon users off of myspace? We just need the product / the infrastructure / the volunteer work to get some stuff done. It hasn't been done yet, but it's not an otherworldly idea. > do you think my mother [...] would happily use bittorrent-based systems tomorrow Which part of it would make her unhappy? Would she miss the corporate entity behind it? The decentralization? Or do you assume that FB's (highly complex by the way) UI is something that cannot be replicated in a sufficiently recognizable manner?
- warp 13y ago
  The bits of the internet I care about would stay largely the same, mostly because I'm lucky that the content I consume is stuff I pay a yearly subscription for. (They also have some ads and so some of their ad revenue would disappear, I'm assuming that evens out by more people paying for a subscription when there are no free, ad-based alternatives :)
- TeMPOraL 13y ago
  > How much of the content you read every day is created by people who are paid to do it? (many links on HN go to articles by paid reporters on news sites, or are commentary on such articles by amateur bloggers) It's funny, I try to actively avoid such content. I.e. most of the time, I don't trust text written for money, because of the misaligned incentives. Even on HN, I focus mostly on the comments. > How much of the content you rely on every day that isn't paid-for content costs an absolute fortune to maintain and would disappear if there wasn't a corporate backer and/or financial incentive? This is, unfortunately, a good point.
- nfoz 13y ago
  Since we live in a world that has copyright, it is reasonable to expect that a lot of works will be created with the expectation of copyright, so we are surrounded by copyright-incentivized works. Obviously if we changed the rules, behaviours would change. Perhaps for you it's hard to imagine how bloggers/journalists could do good work without advertising revenue, but for many of us we would much prefer that. There are alternate business models, but they are obviously secondary since copyright/ads is the social norm.
- summerdown2 13y ago
  There is no copyright in fashion, yet we're not going around wearing beige sacks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_Piracy_Prohibition_Act#Current_Status_of_Fashion_Design_Protection https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_Piracy_Prohibition_Act#... I think there is not much of an argument to be made in favour of copyright. I do think there's a strong argument to be made that artists should be paid. For which, we need a different business model. Maybe the fashion industry, advertising or Patreon would be worth exploring for that.
crusso 13y ago
the world would probably a better place if people published stuff because they thought it would matter to do so, not for ad revenue. Replace "published stuff" with whatever you do in your job every day to make a living and replace "ad revenue" with "compensation". Doesn't sound quite so nice, does it? [edit, added the question]
- lazyjones 13y ago
  > Doesn't sound quite so nice, does it? If I'd had issues with working without compensation, I'd never have built a website in late 1996 (for free!) that eventually got VC-funded in 2000 and led to a situation where I can retire for good any time I wish to. And even though I don't need the compensation, I am still doing this job. Does that answer the question?
  - KC8ZKF 13y ago
    I'm confused. You don't have issues with compensation because you were compensated such that you no longer need compensation. Therefore other people shouldn't expect compensation?
    - lazyjones 13y ago
      Yes, you are. People can expect compensation and not get anywhere (see OP), especially if they publish content (they absurdly think it can be made accessible to everyone but not be copied - heck, we still copy content today that was published thousands of years ago!). Or they can build something that is useful with no such expectations and sometimes they will be rewarded anyway. If I had stuck to expecting compensation for every hour of work, I'd now be very likely stuck in a dull job somewhere ...
      - crusso 13y ago
        We're confused because you appeared to contradict yourself. Besides... the point you're not getting is that the content is copied because people value it. No one is digging and filling holes pointlessly and expecting compensation for useless "work". We're talking about content that is created that other people like and use. The difference between what you did and kept your compensation for vs what content creators do that they don't get compensated for is a matter of the proper protection via laws and technologies. While I would agree that maybe technology-wise it's a losing battle - legally and ethically, saying that the world would be better off if these people would produce what others want for free is problematic.

jeremysmyth 13y ago

the world would probably a better place if people published stuff because they thought it would matter to do so, not for ad revenue 1: How much of the content you read every day is created by people who are paid to do it? (many links on HN go to articles by paid reporters on news sites, or are commentary on such articles by amateur bloggers) 2: How much of the content you rely on every day that isn't paid-for content costs an absolute fortune to maintain and would disappear if there wasn't a corporate backer and/or financial incentive? (like Facebook, Twitter, Stack Overflow) My internet would quickly become a very small and geocities-like place.

lazyjones 13y ago
I have no idea how much of the content I read is paid for (and how). A large part of it is certainly summaries written by people who aren't paid to do so (copied, digested and filtered for me). > My internet would quickly become a very small and geocities-like place. It's funny that you named FB, Twitter and SO as important sources of content you "rely on every day". Who actually writes the content and who gets paid for it? Do you really think it's impossible to get the same amount and quality of content from the same people without some (sometimes evil) corporate entity provding servers and bandwidth? (think P2P)
- jeremysmyth 13y ago
  Do you really think it's impossible to get the same amount and quality of content from the same people without some (sometimes evil) corporate entity provding servers and bandwidth? (think P2P) Sounds like begging the question and reacting to a point I wasn't making, so let me answer a question you're not asking by asking a question you may not answer: Are there any such communities today? Your question seems to imply that you believe such communities are possible. Technologically I have no doubt that that's true. Hey, many BBSs were created, run, staffed, maintained by volunteers back in the day. Large swathes of the original web were created by universities without profit. However, technology isn't the whole story. In order for things to shift where it's likely "to get the same amount and quality of content from the same people" (this point assumes a site with the breadth and universality of Facebook), the world would have to change to such an extent that those people couldn't (or for whatever reason wouldn't) use Facebook, Twitter, Stack Overflow. That world simply does not exist today. To beg the question again, do you think my mother (who counts as one of the same people whose content I'm interested in, and by extent my analogy includes anyone's mother) would happily use bittorrent-based systems tomorrow to replace her use of Facebook today?
  - lazyjones 13y ago
    > Are there any such communities today? Yes, there's Wikipedia and there are IRC channels (and to some extent still, Usenet). > [...]the world would have to change to such an extent that those people couldn't (or for whatever reason wouldn't) use Facebook, Twitter, Stack Overflow. That world simply does not exist today. Why would the world have to change? Did it have to change for FB to exist and siphon users off of myspace? We just need the product / the infrastructure / the volunteer work to get some stuff done. It hasn't been done yet, but it's not an otherworldly idea. > do you think my mother [...] would happily use bittorrent-based systems tomorrow Which part of it would make her unhappy? Would she miss the corporate entity behind it? The decentralization? Or do you assume that FB's (highly complex by the way) UI is something that cannot be replicated in a sufficiently recognizable manner?
warp 13y ago
The bits of the internet I care about would stay largely the same, mostly because I'm lucky that the content I consume is stuff I pay a yearly subscription for. (They also have some ads and so some of their ad revenue would disappear, I'm assuming that evens out by more people paying for a subscription when there are no free, ad-based alternatives :)
TeMPOraL 13y ago
> How much of the content you read every day is created by people who are paid to do it? (many links on HN go to articles by paid reporters on news sites, or are commentary on such articles by amateur bloggers) It's funny, I try to actively avoid such content. I.e. most of the time, I don't trust text written for money, because of the misaligned incentives. Even on HN, I focus mostly on the comments. > How much of the content you rely on every day that isn't paid-for content costs an absolute fortune to maintain and would disappear if there wasn't a corporate backer and/or financial incentive? This is, unfortunately, a good point.
nfoz 13y ago
Since we live in a world that has copyright, it is reasonable to expect that a lot of works will be created with the expectation of copyright, so we are surrounded by copyright-incentivized works. Obviously if we changed the rules, behaviours would change. Perhaps for you it's hard to imagine how bloggers/journalists could do good work without advertising revenue, but for many of us we would much prefer that. There are alternate business models, but they are obviously secondary since copyright/ads is the social norm.
summerdown2 13y ago
There is no copyright in fashion, yet we're not going around wearing beige sacks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_Piracy_Prohibition_Act#Current_Status_of_Fashion_Design_Protection https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_Piracy_Prohibition_Act#... I think there is not much of an argument to be made in favour of copyright. I do think there's a strong argument to be made that artists should be paid. For which, we need a different business model. Maybe the fashion industry, advertising or Patreon would be worth exploring for that.

crusso 13y ago

the world would probably a better place if people published stuff because they thought it would matter to do so, not for ad revenue. Replace "published stuff" with whatever you do in your job every day to make a living and replace "ad revenue" with "compensation". Doesn't sound quite so nice, does it? [edit, added the question]

lazyjones 13y ago
> Doesn't sound quite so nice, does it? If I'd had issues with working without compensation, I'd never have built a website in late 1996 (for free!) that eventually got VC-funded in 2000 and led to a situation where I can retire for good any time I wish to. And even though I don't need the compensation, I am still doing this job. Does that answer the question?
- KC8ZKF 13y ago
  I'm confused. You don't have issues with compensation because you were compensated such that you no longer need compensation. Therefore other people shouldn't expect compensation?
  - lazyjones 13y ago
    Yes, you are. People can expect compensation and not get anywhere (see OP), especially if they publish content (they absurdly think it can be made accessible to everyone but not be copied - heck, we still copy content today that was published thousands of years ago!). Or they can build something that is useful with no such expectations and sometimes they will be rewarded anyway. If I had stuck to expecting compensation for every hour of work, I'd now be very likely stuck in a dull job somewhere ...
    - crusso 13y ago
      We're confused because you appeared to contradict yourself. Besides... the point you're not getting is that the content is copied because people value it. No one is digging and filling holes pointlessly and expecting compensation for useless "work". We're talking about content that is created that other people like and use. The difference between what you did and kept your compensation for vs what content creators do that they don't get compensated for is a matter of the proper protection via laws and technologies. While I would agree that maybe technology-wise it's a losing battle - legally and ethically, saying that the world would be better off if these people would produce what others want for free is problematic.