321–330 of 394 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sadly, it’s worse for both parties in the long run when creative labour is devalued beyond recoupable investment.
Then we shall return to the times before the 19th century, when people created art because they loved art, not to get rich. I suspect it will lead to higher quality art, even if the quantity is lower.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sadly, it’s worse for both parties in the long run when creative labour is devalued beyond recoupable investment.
Then we shall return to the times before the 19th century, when people created art because they loved art, not to get rich. I suspect it will lead to higher quality art, even if the quantity is lower.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
http://charlescosta.net/2014/04/how-the-seven-deadly-sins-dr... tl;dr — Every successful social startup should bend, but not completely violate, one or more social taboos, e.g. one of the 7 deadly sins. Edit: When designing www.fwdeveryone.com, we purposely incorporated Pav's theory by building the platform around the taboo of getting involved in other people's relationships, in this case by letting people read (and…
> Spotify allows consumers to binge on music for a flat fee, however it is crucial to note that the musicians in this case significantly lose out on revenue. As a side note, it amuses me to see this repeated so often, given that it's not true. If you do the math, Spotify pays about the same as a radio play. You just have to remember that each radio play goes out to a few hundred thousand to a few million people each…
This is not true IMHO. You need approximately 4 million plays per month to get the equivalent of Californian minimum wage! [1]
[1] https://mashable.com/2018/01/31/copyright-court-rules-stream...
Edit: You might get might more if you own all the rights yourself but not many artists do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I have also bought many products from other businesses that have made my life better. In most instances, I have only become aware of these products because these businesses have spent money on ad campaigns. That could have been a valid argument in 1970. Today we have the internet. Instead of advertising it's not perfectly possible and easy to have other means of discoverability: a) professional product reviews - a…
I like how you brought up all of those examples for means of discovery. However, I think that almost all of those are a form of advertising. Perhaps the forum where people are giving advice would not be advertising. If any of these are on the internet, then people there will be pixel trackers, and people are going to measure the distinct number of impressions. I don't think this is a bad thing.
If we stretch the notion of advertising to mean "anything that can bring something to one's attention", then yes.
In that case I'm making explicit that by "advertising" in my first comment I referred not to these things, but to what's colloquially referred to as "advertising" -- namely paid tv ads, paid banners, sponsored posts on Facebook, and so on.
Not user forums, not legitimate reviews etc.
>If any of these are on the internet, then people there will be pixel trackers, and people are going to measure the distinct number of impressions. I don't think this is a bad thing
Well, I don't think "measuring the distinct number of impressions" in those kind of websites is a bad thing either.
What I said I consider bad is advertisements, that is getting money from a business for pitching THEIR message (as opposed to objective facts or a reviewer's/user's subjective review), selling your users' private info to them or using it to target them with ads, etc.
Let's imagine for a moment that it was made illegal for a content producer or social website etc to take money, in any kind of form, directly or indirectly, from any product maker, or anyone selling something (that is, no selling ads themselves, and no being paid to show ads).
What would remain on the web to discover products would be all the above I've described.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I feel bad for the founders of Instagram. That's like feeling bad for someone who sold bitcoins at $10. The company they sold was worth $1bn (to Facebook) at the time. It was not worth $100bn.
Yeah. They should have gone for 5-10. I remember on one podcast, Kara Swisher was light-heartedly making fun if Kevin, saying "..He was crying..". Sort of like that. I believe it was a recode podcast
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Say what you want about Zuckerberg but the guy was well ahead of his time and could see how things would evolve and what tick with people brains. Did he really predict that, or did he just see an upcoming potential competitive threat and buy it? I feel bad for the founders of Instagram. They could have been the next Zuckerberg(s) (as Instagram seems to be taking over as Facebook seems to be starting to fade), but i…
I'd feel bad for the employees who took unnecessary dilution less than a week before instagram was bought by facebook. https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/instagram#section-lo...
I am quite privacy conscious. I have deleted my FB account. On principle, I dislike targeted ads, user tracking, etc. BUT, I hate to admit this, the ads I get in Instagram are the most relevant I have ever gotten. I actually look forward to them, to discover new products. They are perfectly tailored to me. Dammit.
Instagram listens to what you say around your phone to serve you ads. It's kind of fucked up. I would get rid of instagram on my phone if it wasn't for all the quality memes. To all the downvoters - are you saying instagram doesn't use your phone microphone to serve you ads? It definately does. It's happened to me countless times.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
http://charlescosta.net/2014/04/how-the-seven-deadly-sins-dr... tl;dr — Every successful social startup should bend, but not completely violate, one or more social taboos, e.g. one of the 7 deadly sins. Edit: When designing www.fwdeveryone.com, we purposely incorporated Pav's theory by building the platform around the taboo of getting involved in other people's relationships, in this case by letting people read (and…
> Spotify allows consumers to binge on music for a flat fee, however it is crucial to note that the musicians in this case significantly lose out on revenue. As a side note, it amuses me to see this repeated so often, given that it's not true. If you do the math, Spotify pays about the same as a radio play. You just have to remember that each radio play goes out to a few hundred thousand to a few million people each…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then we shall return to the times before the 19th century, when people created art because they loved art, not to get rich. I suspect it will lead to higher quality art, even if the quantity is lower.
I believe all that would do is make wealth or extreme tolerance for poverty a requirement to become an artist.