Maybe I’m not getting your point then, but I’m tired of hearing the “oh but somebody will get rich” argument. It’s the internet: everybody can go and find some way to make money instead of whining why it is someone else who could.
Wow, I must be having a bad day, being so illogical every step of the way. It seems your idea of neutral is that everybody pays for posting, but nobody makes anything if others use it, and I can see a serious problem with that for prospective service providers, as I already stated. And no, I don’t believe tipping and similar voluntary stuff can work, but PtP (with all of its awful properties, if you want) can definitely bring them on.
EDIT: On a slightly unrelated note, please let me apologize for my awful and antagonistic tone. I had a hard day, I need to go to sleep, I’d better retire for today lest I end up being even more of a jerk
I hate that argument too - which is why it’s NOT my argument. Here is my argument:
Basically, if you have money to begin with you can use it to drive people to your content … which in turn gives you money to advertise and drive people to your content … a feedback loop that locks out the little fish and locks in the big fish.
“Competition is Sin” – John D. Rockefeller
No apology necessary. We are having a debate and that is useful for the community.
In fact, I’d love that to be the outcome of the SAFEnetwork … but again, my argument is that PtP will allow the ALREADY RICH to PREVENT this from happening.
That is a self defeating process. Reducing returns. The cost to advertise would out weigh the returns. Every advert put up has to be read by someone, but wait everyone on SAFE is using ad blockers. Do you really think that people are going to keep getting this money making garbage. It will end up costing them a whole lot more in the PUT costs then they can ever hope to get from the much smaller PtP payments. Remember people have to get their garbage for them to earn rewards
Also you have to encourage people to put up useful content onto SAFE. After all it will cost them to do so and tehy can do it on the current web for free. As Tim says, tipping etc will not entice them to put it up on SAFE because its common knowledge people on the web won’t pay if they don’t have to.
PtP was a shift from the traditional thinking and have the network reward content uploaders. And like most of SAFE you can “manipulate” how things are done to make more than others, but hey its worse on the clearnet. Its there not to be perfect but to encourage content makers. And I defy you to name one system today that rewards content makers (only) perfectly without being able to be gamed. At least PtP has a purpose and while very small rewards it has a small gaming profile compared to anything else we are used to.
Forget about SAFE, are you saying that given two products, A and B, with B being clearly better and cheaper, and absent any state interference, A will drive out B with better-funded advertising?
Now that is opinion. I’m arguing the logic. You are trying to marginalize the logic with numbers that you don’t and can’t have.
That fact: PtP is a subsidy granted by the network. Any traffic driven to get this content is going to bring some financial benefit to the producer.
Let the content speak for itself. If it is good content it will find an audience. If it is undesirable content, then let the producers pay more to popularize it - as opposed to giving them a subsidy.
PtP makes the system more gamable … so give it up. Every system is gamable … but why would we do something to ENCOURAGE it and make it worse? You are saying in effect that bad things are going to happen … so let’s just allow for that to happen … cause it’s going to happen anyway. You must know better than to make such poor arguments.
Again more opinion that you can’t back up with numbers. Stick to the logic and the facts.
No it is still opinion. You claim that traffic will be driven to it. You claim that advertising will help drive the traffic to it. All opinion. Because you cannot provide any figures to how effective advertising will be, especially considering the ad blockers that will be more standard on SAFE than ever was on clearnet.
Only good content will receive significant rewards, while still small for the most part it does help with the upload costs.
Opinion. The current clearnet is so much more gamable. People are paid to display adverts on their websites, and this can drive traffic to more advertising that makes these low life people you talk of even more than any PtP could make them. So PtP is less gamable not more.to the advertising low life.
You are using opinion without figures, and like me you cannot provide the figures because you do not have them. But just saying it is worse and using reasoning that is able to be questioned with good reason, does not make your argument/reasoning sound.[quote=“TylerAbeoJordan, post:26, topic:7715”]
Stick to the logic and the facts
[/quote]
You have no facts. You say I cannot because there are none, yet you claim to be using facts.
So how many are going to game the system
so how much will advertising drive to the content
so how many GETs will the proliferation of gaming content get
so how much will it cost to upload and how much will they receive for any content
so how much will the advertising cost to upload
so how many will be using ad blockers and never see the adverts
so how many content producers will upload to SAFE when it costs them to do so
Please if you are using facts then provide some.
Your logic so far has been at best reasoning and based on opinion and the gamers will game.
I did make the assumption, in my logical argument, that most people would believe that advertising works … if you don’t believe that, then I think your opinion is an outlier.
I don’t have to determine HOW EFFECTIVE it will be - I only have to show that it has SOME effect, to justify my argument that the PtP subsidy will help the big fish maintain control. As I’m not stating that it will give them outright control, but merely that it will assist in that control.
So what? Because the clearnet is more gameable than SAFEnet with PtP, it’s okay? You are saying that it’s okay to allow for a little gameability when we don’t need to introduce it at all. You want to introduce some corruption … because it won’t be as bad as the corruption we have now. Firstly it’s your opinion as to the degree of the corruption. You don’t have the numbers to do a comparison - so stick to the logic. Secondly, if you say it’s okay to allow for bad, because everyone already has lots of bad … that’s an appeal to tradition (bandwagon fallacy). Thirdly if you are claiming that a little bad is okay because it brings a lot of good with it … well you don’t know the latter as you don’t have any numbers to demonstrate that the good outweighs the bad. I’m not saying that there won’t be any ‘good’ from this … I don’t know. But I do know there will be bad and I’ve outlined one aspect of that and no one here is logically denying that there won’t be bad. So … there is no logical justification that I can see for supporting PtP.
The only available facts are the logical facts … there are no statistical facts (edit: see bottom edit - there are the statistical studies of the psychological effects of advertising).
This has already been addressed - I don’t have to provide that information, unless you provide the counter information. You want me to provide statistics, yet you can’t provide that information either … so the statistical information is a moot point … we only have the logical facts which I think I’ve expressed clearly.
EDIT: as mentioned at the top of this post, I do think advertising works … I consider that a fact. If you consider otherwise, then I can understand how you’d come to the conclusion that PtP might be a good thing. I guess the question then … is does advertising work or not. I suggest that if you think otherwise, you do research on the many psychological studies on the matter. I will bring references for these if you like. Let me know.
No the advertisers are proving that they are losing revenue big time because of the increased use of Advert blockers. And you would be had pressed to say on average the SAFE users would be less likely to use adblockers. (advertising on the net is the only relevant form here.
Opinion.
But you do have to.
If it cost them 10 SAFE coin to upload x amount of content and 100 SAFE coin to upload advert content and pay for advertising on people’s SAFE pages. Then the PtP would have to earn them 110 in PtP rewards. But you have yet to make any factual statements that they could do this time and time again. If it really worked so well then the advertising chaining gaming on clearnet would be making some wealthy. The facts are not there for that succeeding
But you have yet to show that.
No the reasoning was that it is a better system. You want to throw the baby out with the bath water. So what if a couple make it lucky and hit some sweet spot and make some bucks of gaming. But you are then denying the multitude of people who wish to load their content, their blogs, their drawings, their life stories, their home made music, etc etc and deny them a chance at a new way of being helped.
I see your view as the selfish way of viewing the radical shift in doing things all because you see a few who MIGHT, just might, be able to dupe enough people to look at garbage to make them a buck or two. How many will continue to view garbage just to make a few a buck or two. And in your selfish view all the others (>99%) miss out on changing the world and how we treat content providers.
opinion. Wow when are you going to claim communism.
Not reading the argument right are you. You want perfection, well lets wait another 100 years and maybe you will see that is never going to happen. Oh and not having PtP may even see SAFE dry up because who wants to pay to upload their content, No significant amount of content means SAFE fails. Just using your style of logic (really opinion)
And still you claim to use logic based on facts and then you claim I don’t. Wow, pot kettle black comes to mind.
And the misdirection continues. I only said that because you were the one claiming to be using facts yet you provided none. So its your responsibility to provide some of them. Without them you cannot even start to backup your claim that massive advertising (costing heaps) will drive enough traffic to garbage content to make enough money to profit from.
But again you are worried about how much PtP will cost your back pocket, how much profit on the markets you will lose and how much it will cost you to upload. And then how that will stop people adopting SAFE. Well I’d fear people not uploading useful and good content to SAFE and SAFE never becoming used by the masses and that causing the price to drop to near nothing. Especially in the first years people are not going to upload useful content if they have to pay for it, then advertise & beg people pay them. Its free on clearnet.
Sure limit the argument to whatever suits you. That’s fair. Err, no it’s not. Advertisers will change tactics and find other ways to advertise … for instance product placement. You can’t even begin to predict how that will play out.
Then you have to prove statistically that it will provide a NET benefit. And you can’t, as you can’t get those numbers … you are asking me to do something then sidestepping the clear need to do the same. You really don’t like fairness do you? The FACT is that statistics about PtP can’t be garnered yet, so we are left only with the logic of PtP and the facts surrounding what we have studied in the past.
Then why are you concerned that I need to prove a NET NEGATIVE? You are assuming that there is a negative, and hence I have shown that there will be an effect … clearly we are going in circles here - if you truly don’t understand what I am saying then I’m sorry, but we seem at an impasse - if you do understand, then I think you are playing a political game here.
I’ve addressed that, you are ignoring my point.
No, you want to put a snake in the bathwater, I don’t want the snake in the bathwater to begin with.
Hypocrisy You tell me to provide stats, when I don’t even provide arguments that require them, but then you go and lay out arguments that require stats and you don’t provide them.
It’s not opinion - I’ve laid out the logic and you haven’t logically disproven/denied it.
I don’t expect perfection … I expect that we don’t introduce known flaws.
I think you are unconsicously twisting everything backwards to suit your case … all while carefully avoiding the logic … simply because you can’t deny it. I think you’ve painted yourself into a corner and you don’t know when to give it up.
Ad hominem attack. You are implying that I am being deliberately obtuse or misleading. I am not. I think I’ve been very clear and careful with my argument - I have made errors, but have patched as we’ve gone along.
I think you are too invested in PtP to allow yourself to open up to the possibility that you might be wrong, so you are subconsciously twisting it all up in your head.
Where did I say that? This is my argument:
You are kinda all over the place and not focused on the argument I put forward. Can you come back, put your attachments aside and be more objective? If you beef is just with advertising then let’s go there and discuss that more. if it’s not, then logically PtP will enable big fish to subsize (to some unknown amount) their advertising and that in turn will do exactly as I suggest it will. Unless there is a logical error in my argument … if so where is it? Please stick to the argument and refrain from making ad-hominem attacks.
This is getting stupid. You are making the claims I am only countering them. You have yet to back up your claims. And now you say you will not till I do.
I asked you if you wanted me to bring you references to studies and you did not reply to that. ‘Garbage’ is subjective. And not part of the point I’m making anyway. The elite controlling the system might have decent stuff … that doesn’t however detract from my argument against.
Also, just to point out, you also put forward other arguments - not true counters to mine (as was the advertising argument) but other economic ones … and you didn’t provide evidence for those … simply because there is no evidence to those as we’d have to have the network running to see/find out/learn.
My argument doesn’t rely on some future we can’t see. It relies on what we know (or can know if we do a little research) about marketing and market control through advertising AND the basic logic of PtP.
You don’t have to agree with my argument … but telling me I haven’t backed it up? What’s to back up? What precisely do you want? Keep it in line with my argument - don’t make side arguments and ask me to disprove them.
I’m fairly sure you are aware of many forms of advertising. Newspaper advertising used to be big, then radio came along and newspaper revenue (advertising) declined … then the tv came along and radio revenue (advertising) declined, then the internet came along and tv revenue (advertising) declined, then torrents came along and adblockers came along and internet revenue (advertising) declined … do you see a pattern here? Human creativity is constantly playing leapfrog. I don’t need to predict the specific future to predict the future generally. Advertisers are not robots, they are people and they are always looking for ways to make money. That said I did give a specific example of a technique that is well known and currently employed that could be employed to a much greater degree and won’t be blocked by adblockers nor stifled by torrents … that one, to reiterate from a previous post, is called “product placement”.
where?
yes I made an argument … here it is again:
If you don’t accept that advertising can direct people’s actions, or you believe that we will, in the future live in a magical land where such will not still hold true, then I cannot show this claim as valid TO YOU PERSONALLY.
I don’t have to do that, I never claimed that it would in this argument. Here you go again though, adding on things that are not relevant to the argument I made.
WHAT? What does this have to do with my argument? You’re majorly spinning out.
So you are making the argument that SAFEnet will NOT get quality content providers without PtP?
Okay … I’ll bite … NOW YOU PROVIDE THE EVIDENCE. My argument requires looking back at history and thinking about it a bit - logic and some past evidence and making an assumption about the future of advertising - and I think many would agree with me on those points whether you do or not. Your argument/claim cannot be remotely validated without future data.
So who is the one snorting the fairy dust?
You’ve just edited your post so much of this won’t track back to your post … but I’m putting it up all the same, I spent a lot of time writing it.
Your “attack” or gaming of PtP and what you have reduced PtP to being can be duplicated on the current internet now.
Pay per view advertising is common on the clearnet.
Now the gamer simply sets up 100000’s of webpages, costing a little with hosting costs. I can current pay a few dollars and have many times 100000’s of pages with “content” to display and display adverts. So I sign up for the advertising system and each time one of my “content” is displayed 10 adverts are displayed to for which I am paid.
So you introduced a gamer advertising in print, radio, internet, etc etc to drive people to view content on SAFE and earn PtP. Well so can that be done on the clearnet with the 100000’s of content pages and 10 adverts served up on each page. The clearnet gamer buys advertising driving people to their 100000’s of content.
For the same reason this doesn’t work in the clearnet is the same reason your argument will not work on SAFE. Someone may get it to work one time for a while, but people spot the crap and bypass it.
And actually the adverts per view probably pay more than what teh PtP will pay by many fold.
So now I leave you to your opinion based trashing of PtP and I will stop bothering you with such logic-less discussions
I like your critical stance @TylerAbeoJordan, but to me it seems you are making an argument against advertising rather than against PtP and I don´t see how not introducing PtP would have us end up with less advertising. I have been opposed to PtP for different reasons, but I don´t think your point is accurate here. PtP can be used to make money for those who are able to direct traffic same as the internet in general can be used to do that, but we are not discussing to get rid of the connection of computers (I guess). Also I disagree that advertising “can do” something. It´s people who fall for narratives - if you are unable or unwilling to revise them you will always fall for them no matter if you call it advertisement or plain talk.
You have not considered the cost of gaming the system. People who don’t game the system avoid that cost.
I am not denying anything, I’m asking you to back up your opinion with some kind of analysis, because as you’ve just illustrated you have not given this much thought.
Also, it should be clear that PTP is “pay the publisher”, not the producer - since there is no way maid knows who the producer is. If someone sets the price of content to X and someone else comes along, downloads it once, then re-uploads it setting the price to X/10 …there’s nothing MAID can do to prevent them from making money on it.
