4 ms·

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

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.

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.