will not post creative works online so it can be scraped by altman/musk/gates et al.
That definitely killed my own desire to engage. Stoped blogging, most open source, and given up on StackOverflow, sadly.
The Death of the Creator Middle Class
11–20 of 22 posts
Re: The Death of the Creator Middle Class
#12What is this person's definition of creator? They mean writing shit online for some blog or something?
That's only "middle class" in the sense that your middle class lifestyle allows you to have this as a hobby, and a few lucky people doing it make a few bucks.
The activity didn't even exist before the Internet. If you wanted to reach people with a newsletter or talk, you had to join the staff of some widely circulated publication, or get into broadcasting. Those were then middle class jobs.
Re: The Death of the Creator Middle Class
#13>AI competes with us for attention. And it changes the reader too. I wrote a whole piece on how AI isn’t replacing writers, it’s replacing readers.
And yet this is itself AI text.
Re: The Death of the Creator Middle Class
#14> AI competes with us for attention. And it changes the reader too. I wrote a whole piece on how AI isn’t replacing writers, it’s replacing readers. And yet this is itself AI text.
What makes you say that? It did not jump out as obviously AI generated to me.
Re: The Death of the Creator Middle Class
#15Re: The Death of the Creator Middle Class
#16Re: The Death of the Creator Middle Class
#17I think there is a flaw in thinking that "Creators" have some intrinsic value. The reason the middle gets pushed out is correct in this article but it is missing an important point: there are too many creators. That is why the top gets heavier and the bottom spreads out.
The problem is that creating is what most people want to do. So "creators" does have intrinsic value.
Re: The Death of the Creator Middle Class
#18Lots of claims but zero sources mentioned.
But even the author’s own claims may prove the opposite of their conclusion:
> More than 1.5 million Americans call themselves full-time creators, roughly seven times as many as in 2020.
> So you’d think there’s more money to go around. There is. It just isn’t spread the way you’d hope. …
> When budgets are tight, they go in two directions. Up, to the big names with the reach. Or down, to the nano and micro creators who are cheap and come in bulk.
> The middle gets skipped. Again. Too expensive to be a bargain. Too small to be a headline.
If the number of nanoinfluencers is exploding in quantity, the existing middle might be growing or earning more, but the median can still go down.
But without any such claimed data or sources about middle vs bottom it’s not possible to say whether middle or bottom are getting impacted.
Re: The Death of the Creator Middle Class
#19I was looking at creating blogs and YouTube content years ago, but I concluded that because of the way algorithms work, good content is actively buried. And where it does find people, the people are trained not to want it.
It really is just a hamster wheel at this point. If you want to create content the content has to be modern day clickbait, and then there is no time or energy left to make good content. So why bother in the first place?
These days I actively avoid any website of app that uses an algorithm, because simply it doesn't have anything on it I actually want to consume.
For my own music that I make, I share it on WhatsApp/Signal with my friends and family. No point putting it anywhere else.
Re: The Death of the Creator Middle Class
#20I think there is a flaw in thinking that "Creators" have some intrinsic value. The reason the middle gets pushed out is correct in this article but it is missing an important point: there are too many creators. That is why the top gets heavier and the bottom spreads out.
Same thing is happening with pay and remuneration as with content. I abhor the whole 1% crap, but it sorta seems like a thumbtack, forgive the analogy...