6 ms·

Basically, a basic income would solve this since people are doing it because they need money to survive. Sometimes I think that money is corrupting everything

by Buetol 11y ago

Basically, a basic income would solve this since people are doing it because they need money to survive. Sometimes I think that money is corrupting everything and in the future it will be seen as an aberration. Hard to tell. EDIT: It's not money directly than corrupts human to do not do the right things. It's forcing people the earn money to survive.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
NoGravitas 11y ago
[Money is a sign of poverty.][0] [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Culture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Culture
sokoloff 11y ago
I don't think this is being done for survival; I think it's being done because it can be done and it's asymmetrically lucrative. Petty theft of a jar of peanut butter may well be solved by a basic income. Ad-free internet business models will not be created by a basic income.
- panic 11y ago
  Sure, but with a basic income, it would be easier to run a site like SoundCloud without ads. You could switch to an alternative site once SoundCloud started pushing ads.
tremon 11y ago
The people that are buying up these sites and walling them off hardly need more money. The blandness of profit-driven sites has nothing to do with the incentives of artists and everything to do with mindless "optimization" towards the middle by non-artists.
JorgeGT 11y ago
Money is just a tool to separate the value of goods and services from the goods and services themselves, allowing us to trade and chain-link them - it's not inherently bad. For instance, I can't obtain my bread from the baker by trading my scientific publications with him, because he is not interested in turbomachinery acoustics. But a chain of value-trading is established linking funding companies, their customers, me, all the way to the baker using this tool. He can continue the chain by purchasing a TV without needing to send X amount of bread to Samsung. Also, he can't store bread without going stale and worthless, but he can store money. Amazing invention! I doubt complex economies and products could be feasible without it. As for the "wrong turn" of the internet, I think it's just the transition from amateur to professional, same as it happened with sports in the XX century: > Before the advent of the Open era of tennis competitions in April 1968, only amateurs were allowed to compete in established tournaments, including the four Grand Slams. There was no prize money and players were compensated for travel expenses only [Wikipedia] Nowadays people can (and does) live by practicing a sport or publishing content on the internet, so it is only normal that the strategy has changed into a more business-oriented focus.
JustSomeNobody 11y ago
I'm just not following the connection from ads on the internet to a basic income. I've heard some good arguments for as well as against a basic income. I've never heard ads on the internet as one of them.
- Buetol 11y ago
  The connection is in the "why". Why do website switch to an ad-based revenue model ? (and so, against their initial will). Because the people running it needs money. If you have a basic income, it's easier for people to run websites for free without ads.
  - kjdal2001 11y ago
    I would guess that the cost of running the business is higher than their personal expenses. Whatever the benefits of basic income, the idea isn't to subsidize a business.
    - Buetol 11y ago
      The operating cost of running a website today is cheap enough to not even worry about it IMHO (5$/month for a basic server)
  - JustSomeNobody 11y ago
    I still don't get this line of thinking. Most basic income levels are just above poverty level. And, so, if a web page is run by someone making a basic income and showing no ads, that person will only ever stay at that level. They would still need to show ads or something to make more money. They are already doing this. I just don't see this as a valid argument for basic income. It is fodder for basic income opponents is what it is.
    - Buetol 11y ago
      If the basic income is at a comfortable level, then most people won't look to make more money, I think, but improve the things they have. And this is the whole debate I think, are people hungry for the money even with a comfortable income or with a sufficient income they are not gonna look to earn more ?

by Buetol 11y ago

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

NoGravitas 11y ago

[Money is a sign of poverty.][0] [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Culture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Culture

sokoloff 11y ago

I don't think this is being done for survival; I think it's being done because it can be done and it's asymmetrically lucrative. Petty theft of a jar of peanut butter may well be solved by a basic income. Ad-free internet business models will not be created by a basic income.

panic 11y ago
Sure, but with a basic income, it would be easier to run a site like SoundCloud without ads. You could switch to an alternative site once SoundCloud started pushing ads.

tremon 11y ago

The people that are buying up these sites and walling them off hardly need more money. The blandness of profit-driven sites has nothing to do with the incentives of artists and everything to do with mindless "optimization" towards the middle by non-artists.

JorgeGT 11y ago

Money is just a tool to separate the value of goods and services from the goods and services themselves, allowing us to trade and chain-link them - it's not inherently bad. For instance, I can't obtain my bread from the baker by trading my scientific publications with him, because he is not interested in turbomachinery acoustics. But a chain of value-trading is established linking funding companies, their customers, me, all the way to the baker using this tool. He can continue the chain by purchasing a TV without needing to send X amount of bread to Samsung. Also, he can't store bread without going stale and worthless, but he can store money. Amazing invention! I doubt complex economies and products could be feasible without it. As for the "wrong turn" of the internet, I think it's just the transition from amateur to professional, same as it happened with sports in the XX century: > Before the advent of the Open era of tennis competitions in April 1968, only amateurs were allowed to compete in established tournaments, including the four Grand Slams. There was no prize money and players were compensated for travel expenses only [Wikipedia] Nowadays people can (and does) live by practicing a sport or publishing content on the internet, so it is only normal that the strategy has changed into a more business-oriented focus.

JustSomeNobody 11y ago

I'm just not following the connection from ads on the internet to a basic income. I've heard some good arguments for as well as against a basic income. I've never heard ads on the internet as one of them.

Buetol 11y ago
The connection is in the "why". Why do website switch to an ad-based revenue model ? (and so, against their initial will). Because the people running it needs money. If you have a basic income, it's easier for people to run websites for free without ads.
- kjdal2001 11y ago
  I would guess that the cost of running the business is higher than their personal expenses. Whatever the benefits of basic income, the idea isn't to subsidize a business.
  - Buetol 11y ago
    The operating cost of running a website today is cheap enough to not even worry about it IMHO (5$/month for a basic server)
- JustSomeNobody 11y ago
  I still don't get this line of thinking. Most basic income levels are just above poverty level. And, so, if a web page is run by someone making a basic income and showing no ads, that person will only ever stay at that level. They would still need to show ads or something to make more money. They are already doing this. I just don't see this as a valid argument for basic income. It is fodder for basic income opponents is what it is.
  - Buetol 11y ago
    If the basic income is at a comfortable level, then most people won't look to make more money, I think, but improve the things they have. And this is the whole debate I think, are people hungry for the money even with a comfortable income or with a sufficient income they are not gonna look to earn more ?