I think that’s too generalized. Marketing finances the Internet just as it has always financed print media (including the good, even inversitgative journalism).
I would definitely prefer a world in which sources of content are often paid-only instead of ad-supported, but the main thing needed for such a world is a higher minimum wage so more people have disposable income to distribute to authors they appreciate.
This would mean that if someone posts a rage-bait article like “Is Former President OBAMA Stealing Opium Money OUT OF YOUR POCKET?” then maybe people will click it, but the author won’t gain anything out of it.
The only way this would work is if you paid for a subscription to many news sources a la Netflix. No one will buy subscriptions to each individual author or publication. But of course Netflix now has ads too, so greed really has no bounds, especially once they’ve got you roped in.
A bigger concern with that model is that then Netflix of news or whatever gets to choose what you see. We’d have the Netflix of news with their own baked-in bullshit leading the charge regardless of how shit it was. Esoteric sources would die and popularity would rule that space.
Yeah how about no? Knowledge should be free, I’m not gonna pay 5c every time I want to open Youtube or some shit. In a utopia you’d pay some small government tax that’d go towards keeping the web ad and paywall free, so the people get happy and the greedy corporate rats get their dirty money.
That assumes either all sites on the web deserve equal compensation for their acts, or some body can decide what the relative value of each is and compensate each creator accordingly. You’d go back to having click farms, but they’d claim the government owes them a billion dollars for their high traffic.
Even the government would usually prefer that citizen money go directly to the systems that they prefer to support, rather than go through taxes to a government program that sponsors them (that’s why you get tax deduction for transit usage and charities). That second route is just needlessly complex.
There’s also better models for payment than microcharges. No one wants to consciously spend 5 cents in an online action. YouTube could require users to be subscribers to view or upload certain forms of content, or each individual creator would integrate some form of Patreon setup. A really simple solution would be to divide someone’s monthly subscription fee based on who they watched most that month.
Print and written media existed for literally thousands of years
Uh, no? If by media you mean anything that could remotely considered for the masses then absolutely not. The printing press was so revolutionary because it allowed making multiple copies of written documents without doing them each manually. Reading and writing was so expensive and rare a hobby because the written word was expensive; why would you need to read more than the basic signs if chalk boards were your limit of writing?
“News” before then was word of mouth. Town criers and the like.
Guy replies with a hyperbolic shitpost about capitalism.
OP replies sincerely.
I reply hyperbolically in turn.
You assume I’m serious, then assume media can only mean “the mass news media” while ignoring any subtler parallels about access to information and adoption. (e.g. Does reading and writing being expensive relate to the early internet where access and hosting were expensive? Does the evolution of the written word have parallels with the evolution of the internet?)
If I’m responding semi-seriously, I do want to note that it’s only in the American school system where there’s no writing until the west gets paper. Armies of scribes carved into stone, impressed into clay, and wrote onto vellum to blanket empires in written news.
Armies of scribes carved into stone, impressed into clay, and wrote onto vellum to blanket empires in written news.
Yes. This semi-happened elsewhere. But this isn’t for the “people”. These were for the rich and powerful and the government.
And I’m sorry if your shitpost wasn’t understood. As has always been the case, text is not a great medium for conveying sarcasm. We did invent /s for that reason.
“No! There are absolutely no parallels between the written word and the development of the internet,” you growl through gritted teeth. “And while the stone markers distributed with text in several languages including that of the common people and placed in gathering areas did provide news to the people, it only carried the news the royals wanted them to now about,” you finish triumphantly, not realizing that proves the point being made.
I’m talking about modern print media of course, cmon. Also Printing does not date back thousands of years - it was invented (in the west) by gutenberg in the 15th century. What are you saying?
I am aware of that. Either way, in this context, it is not useful to go over the long history of writing or print technology. I just wanted to say that even the now largely dysfunctional business models of the print media - I mean, of course, the opinion-forming press, such as newspapers or magazines - are historically linked to advertising sales. There were even advertisements in books. This is how journalism has always been financed (in fact, subscriptions still only account for a small proportion of revenues). And it’s the same on the Internet: News sites are essentially funded by ads - the same way all major social media platforms and most of major websites work. In my opinion, it is unrealistic to claim that marketing revenues can be dispensed with, because creating content is very time-consuming and therefore costly.
I’m saying you’re responding incoherently to people making fun of you because you can’t tell they’re giving you shit for your bad take.
I’m saying you’re pick and choosing your battles so you can feel bad about the modern world while ignoring the fact that you’re a part of the growing movement against the corporate web.
The corporate hatred you have isn’t new. Infinite growth isn’t sustainable and the awareness of that is growing.
Newspapers, books, music, TV, aren’t dead, they’ve continuing to evolve and independent creators are producing more worthwhile works than I’ll ever make it through. And all of those were “dead” before the internet. “Video killed the radio star” after all. But, we’ve seen several newsrooms destroyed as not-profitable enough, only to get restarted as employee owned newsrooms. There’s never been a better time to be a patron of the arts or a music fan.
Even so, the world doesn’t exist online. Talk to people in your community. You’ll feel better and the work and art they’re creating is more impactful than “content”.
Marketing ruins everything.
I think that’s too generalized. Marketing finances the Internet just as it has always financed print media (including the good, even inversitgative journalism).
I would definitely prefer a world in which sources of content are often paid-only instead of ad-supported, but the main thing needed for such a world is a higher minimum wage so more people have disposable income to distribute to authors they appreciate.
This would mean that if someone posts a rage-bait article like “Is Former President OBAMA Stealing Opium Money OUT OF YOUR POCKET?” then maybe people will click it, but the author won’t gain anything out of it.
The only way this would work is if you paid for a subscription to many news sources a la Netflix. No one will buy subscriptions to each individual author or publication. But of course Netflix now has ads too, so greed really has no bounds, especially once they’ve got you roped in.
Patreon has pretty much already taken that spot.
A bigger concern with that model is that then Netflix of news or whatever gets to choose what you see. We’d have the Netflix of news with their own baked-in bullshit leading the charge regardless of how shit it was. Esoteric sources would die and popularity would rule that space.
Yeah how about no? Knowledge should be free, I’m not gonna pay 5c every time I want to open Youtube or some shit. In a utopia you’d pay some small government tax that’d go towards keeping the web ad and paywall free, so the people get happy and the greedy corporate rats get their dirty money.
That assumes either all sites on the web deserve equal compensation for their acts, or some body can decide what the relative value of each is and compensate each creator accordingly. You’d go back to having click farms, but they’d claim the government owes them a billion dollars for their high traffic.
Even the government would usually prefer that citizen money go directly to the systems that they prefer to support, rather than go through taxes to a government program that sponsors them (that’s why you get tax deduction for transit usage and charities). That second route is just needlessly complex.
There’s also better models for payment than microcharges. No one wants to consciously spend 5 cents in an online action. YouTube could require users to be subscribers to view or upload certain forms of content, or each individual creator would integrate some form of Patreon setup. A really simple solution would be to divide someone’s monthly subscription fee based on who they watched most that month.
I think that’s too generalized. Print and written media existed for literally thousands of years before marketing finance.
Touch some grass.
Uh, no? If by media you mean anything that could remotely considered for the masses then absolutely not. The printing press was so revolutionary because it allowed making multiple copies of written documents without doing them each manually. Reading and writing was so expensive and rare a hobby because the written word was expensive; why would you need to read more than the basic signs if chalk boards were your limit of writing?
“News” before then was word of mouth. Town criers and the like.
My neato.
Guy replies with a hyperbolic shitpost about capitalism.
OP replies sincerely.
I reply hyperbolically in turn.
You assume I’m serious, then assume media can only mean “the mass news media” while ignoring any subtler parallels about access to information and adoption. (e.g. Does reading and writing being expensive relate to the early internet where access and hosting were expensive? Does the evolution of the written word have parallels with the evolution of the internet?)
If I’m responding semi-seriously, I do want to note that it’s only in the American school system where there’s no writing until the west gets paper. Armies of scribes carved into stone, impressed into clay, and wrote onto vellum to blanket empires in written news.
Yes. This semi-happened elsewhere. But this isn’t for the “people”. These were for the rich and powerful and the government.
And I’m sorry if your shitpost wasn’t understood. As has always been the case, text is not a great medium for conveying sarcasm. We did invent /s for that reason.
“No! There are absolutely no parallels between the written word and the development of the internet,” you growl through gritted teeth. “And while the stone markers distributed with text in several languages including that of the common people and placed in gathering areas did provide news to the people, it only carried the news the royals wanted them to now about,” you finish triumphantly, not realizing that proves the point being made.
What does touch some grass mean?
Also, what kind of print and media existed for thousands of years? I thought it was just religious scrolls and cave paintings
I’m talking about modern print media of course, cmon. Also Printing does not date back thousands of years - it was invented (in the west) by gutenberg in the 15th century. What are you saying?
Printing existed a long time before the printing press. But woodblock printing lacked responsive design so we’re definitely being too generalized.
I am aware of that. Either way, in this context, it is not useful to go over the long history of writing or print technology. I just wanted to say that even the now largely dysfunctional business models of the print media - I mean, of course, the opinion-forming press, such as newspapers or magazines - are historically linked to advertising sales. There were even advertisements in books. This is how journalism has always been financed (in fact, subscriptions still only account for a small proportion of revenues). And it’s the same on the Internet: News sites are essentially funded by ads - the same way all major social media platforms and most of major websites work. In my opinion, it is unrealistic to claim that marketing revenues can be dispensed with, because creating content is very time-consuming and therefore costly.
I’m saying you’re responding incoherently to people making fun of you because you can’t tell they’re giving you shit for your bad take.
I’m saying you’re pick and choosing your battles so you can feel bad about the modern world while ignoring the fact that you’re a part of the growing movement against the corporate web.
The corporate hatred you have isn’t new. Infinite growth isn’t sustainable and the awareness of that is growing.
Newspapers, books, music, TV, aren’t dead, they’ve continuing to evolve and independent creators are producing more worthwhile works than I’ll ever make it through. And all of those were “dead” before the internet. “Video killed the radio star” after all. But, we’ve seen several newsrooms destroyed as not-profitable enough, only to get restarted as employee owned newsrooms. There’s never been a better time to be a patron of the arts or a music fan.
Even so, the world doesn’t exist online. Talk to people in your community. You’ll feel better and the work and art they’re creating is more impactful than “content”.