zompist wrote: ↑Sat Nov 02, 2024 5:22 am
I don't understand what this objection is supposed to be. Do recipes, songs, conlangs, and video game reviews have to be free in order to have an informed electorate?
In this context, "information" clearly refers to the news. I'm trying to avoid every qualification in every sentence.
If you want a broader outlook, you seem to be under the impression that capitalism helps to collect and distribute information. This is not how I see it. Because of copyright, media is being lost forever. The owners of the media are not interested in distributing it. They are interested in winning lawsuits against anyone who does distribute it. Copyright law killed the Internet Archive.
zompist wrote: ↑Sat Nov 02, 2024 5:22 am
There are two sources of information that should be readily available, but cost money to produce: journalism and scientific papers. The current system is to fund these via rich men and advertisers, and universities in the case of the papers; and the current hot plan is to write them with spicy autocomplete. Both the journalism and the papers are gated with subscription fees as well-- just enough to add friction for the public but not enough to make users into stakeholders. Journal publishers manage somehow to
make authors pay when an article is published.
Let me ask you an honest question. Let's say you come across an article on the internet that's behind a paywall. It's interesting and you do sort of want to know what it says. Is the question you ask yourself: "Can I afford this?"
I have occasionally paid for articles on the internet that are unrelated to my livelihood (my father would have shuddered to hear of this). I only did it when it was really, really interesting, and I had the feeling I might stay awake at night if I didn't know the answer. This is how sensationalism spreads.
I see family and acquaintances all the time who would never, ever pay for anything that can't directly bring them money or health. I have cousins who break down crying if they ever find their sons playing one video game or watching one movie. Either study, play sports, eat while watching TV or sleep, all the time. Straight and narrow. Perhaps they make an exception for religion these days. Being Hitler is increasingly popular.
zompist wrote: ↑Sat Nov 02, 2024 5:22 am
My proposal is to pay the journalists and scientists instead. Why it raises your hackles to pay workers for their work, I don't really get; it sure isn't any kind of leftism. Of course, quite a few people in the real world are attempting to form publishing co-operatives for these groups, but there's a lot of inertia. The one good thing about capitalist greed is that eventually it provokes communities to create alternatives.
Yep, this is how I remember the last argument going. If all progressive ideas are techbro propaganda and true leftism is charging the poor to turn them into a stakeholder class, maybe I should reserve my retirement spot under the bridge in advance.
zompist wrote: ↑Sat Nov 02, 2024 5:22 am
People have to pay for Internet access today. But as a data point, Nigeria has 218 million cell phones, in a population of 233 million. (The discrepancy is larger than it looks, as some people have multiple phones.) Nigerians are more likely to have a cell phone than access to a water source.
People need phones for work. Americans aren't going to catfish themselves, apparently. And this means Nigeria is relatively integrated into the mainstream world economy. It says 51% of the population has a mobile connection in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
zompist wrote: ↑Sat Nov 02, 2024 5:22 am
It does feel like you're making up fake gotchas. Did I say somewhere that poor people should be denied internet access, that no one can provide a website for free, or that the government shouldn't provide help with access costs? I did not. (I already said I was designing this for Almea, so you'll see the full plan eventually; I didn't give all the details.)
It sure sounded that way to me. Across multiple posts, I never saw any demarcation of which items ought to be free until I called you out on it. It sounded like you were calling ad-free Google and similar services a "trap", comparing the internet to the phone, where you are traditionally charged with use, and even after I asked you about it, saying that free information should be like Geocities at best.
I don't know what you wanted me to think. I only have access to the words you actually put there, and those are what I'm arguing against.
The market socialist position I was expecting is that the market would give almost everyone a decent job or something.
zompist wrote: ↑Sat Nov 02, 2024 5:22 am
Getting people to care about public goods is a difficult problem. It should concern you deeply, since socialist systems greatly exacerbate the problem.
I think the right strategy is to recommend the good stuff.
Even if you insist on integrating picoeconomic motivations with macroeconomic goals, people are paying for journalism under my system. They are expending a part of their power to demand goods and services. If there's demand for a service, people are presumably consuming it. Many YouTube channels, even left-leaning content, grow into million dollar companies despite releasing their videos for free. These are supported by ad dollars and, I think, premium membership fees.
I can imagine cases where people demand a service, and then don't consume it. Maybe the content is very dry. This is why right-wing propaganda tends to be formatted as "entertainment". It's very prevalent on the internet because it's both free and heavily promoted. Your stance presupposes that the people who need the information trust trustworthy sources enough to pay them. They might already be under the thrall of these clowns on the far right.
I learn the following lessons: 1. Think about aesthetic factors when presenting information. Hire artists if necessary. 2. Make it free. 3. Promote important information relentlessly.