3 ms·

For these kinds of services, the introduction of a payment can change supply and demand in very unexpected ways. Example: There once was an experiment with blo

by kszx 12y ago

For these kinds of services, the introduction of a payment can change supply and demand in very unexpected ways. Example: There once was an experiment with blood donations, where a payment for the blood donation actually decreased the number of people who were willing to donate. Apparently, receiving a payment for an activity that seems charitable makes some people feel bad. A similar effect might happen if Blind My Eyes introduced payments. (While this particular effect would reduce supply, this does not necessarily imply that the introduction of a payment would lead to a negative change in supply. It's just one factor.)

ndarilek 12y ago
As a blind person, I find the idea that my borrowing someone's eyes is viewed as a charitable thing somewhat bothersome, particularly if I'm doing it to use my time more efficiently. Put another way, sure I can wait 6 hours or so until a sightling happens to be around so I can read a letter, but how is me paying a few bucks for someone's time to do it now any different than you paying for Uber, Lyft, etc. instead of taking a bus? Further, while I support this initiative, I have to wonder how sustainable it will be in the long run. I used to occasionally use Solona, a CAPTCHA-solving service that relied on volunteers. Unfortunately I can't seem to find it anymore (only searched briefly) and I recall many instances where volunteers weren't available. A marketplace that exchanges micropayments for these types of services, usable on a variety of platforms and with easy notifications for assistants, is something I've personally wanted for a very long time. Disclosure: I'm working on such a thing, hoping to launch in 2-3 months.
- TuringTest 12y ago
  It's not more charitable than contributing content to Wikipedia. By gamifying the service or otherwise rewarding those who lend their eyes in some non-monetary way, participating in the app is a form of entertainment that brings its own reward.
  - dsrguru 12y ago
    Contributions to Wikipedia are not time-sensitive, and the ability to load a Wikipedia article is not dependent on the availability of volunteering Wikipedia gnomes. Here, the availability of seeing volunteers at any given time is the limiting reagent, and the free market is one proposed solution. The Uber/Lyft/taxi analogy is that the availability of friends with cars and free time at any given time or place is the limiting reagent for getting free rides. The existence of paid services allows us to increase that availability by orders of magnitude, and hopefully the same would apply here.

by kszx 12y ago

ndarilek 12y ago

As a blind person, I find the idea that my borrowing someone's eyes is viewed as a charitable thing somewhat bothersome, particularly if I'm doing it to use my time more efficiently. Put another way, sure I can wait 6 hours or so until a sightling happens to be around so I can read a letter, but how is me paying a few bucks for someone's time to do it now any different than you paying for Uber, Lyft, etc. instead of taking a bus? Further, while I support this initiative, I have to wonder how sustainable it will be in the long run. I used to occasionally use Solona, a CAPTCHA-solving service that relied on volunteers. Unfortunately I can't seem to find it anymore (only searched briefly) and I recall many instances where volunteers weren't available. A marketplace that exchanges micropayments for these types of services, usable on a variety of platforms and with easy notifications for assistants, is something I've personally wanted for a very long time. Disclosure: I'm working on such a thing, hoping to launch in 2-3 months.

TuringTest 12y ago
It's not more charitable than contributing content to Wikipedia. By gamifying the service or otherwise rewarding those who lend their eyes in some non-monetary way, participating in the app is a form of entertainment that brings its own reward.
- dsrguru 12y ago
  Contributions to Wikipedia are not time-sensitive, and the ability to load a Wikipedia article is not dependent on the availability of volunteering Wikipedia gnomes. Here, the availability of seeing volunteers at any given time is the limiting reagent, and the free market is one proposed solution. The Uber/Lyft/taxi analogy is that the availability of friends with cars and free time at any given time or place is the limiting reagent for getting free rides. The existence of paid services allows us to increase that availability by orders of magnitude, and hopefully the same would apply here.