Sorry forgot to post the links. I hope they help
- Pay the Producer should be called Pay the Site Owner, right?
- Pay per Like means large scale fraud, as long a Like costs less than it makes. There was a discussion about request stuffing here: Why wouldn't app developers stuff their GET requests?. Like Stuffing would be as bad, and do as little for real authors, as Request Stuffing.
So I’m undecided because no approach can reward the producer. Any of them may, but no one can guarantee it, and there is no solution (even if SAFE watched for original checksums, it’d still couldn’t guarantee the first file on SAFE belongs to the author, and even if it did, all that would require is a slight (1 pixel) change to get around it).
There being no solution, it’s only a matter of how various interest groups align. Naturally, there are more users than farmers, and more farmers than developers and other authors, so I think we all know how this is going to end.
This will be the major deciding factor.
Where is the “as already described” and “please no more bikeshedding” option?
Actually, if a producer (original content creator) makes their walletmark address public… then consumers have a way of filtering, following, and supporting the original producer.
This does not mean all will take the time to do so, or even care. But loyal fans are tenacious about “knowing” the original, especially when it comes to celebrities. At the very least, they have a way of “signing their work.” The rest is up to the community.
My vote is for Basic Walletmark, which makes everything else possible but not mandatory.
Also have to remember if content gets cached that’s the scope of the reward from GETs and I think that a benchmark should be discovered before committing to any one way. And IMO we should test the initial proposal of paying on gets until cached, Also remember that people can charge to consume their content, and don’t need to participate in the GET paid model of course.
And probably the vote will have more basis to reference from if we tried something specifically first. In other words, I’m all in on the original GET proposal until proven it’s gamed too easily, detrimental to the system; Or proven the opposite that GETs paid is the model to go, and no one gets an unfair gain in the system.
Doesn’t pay per like suffer from the effect studied and written about in sociological studies where people follow the masses. That they will prefer something to fit in with the crowd.
Advertisers use this to sway people to buy their products.
So rather than provide an accurate measure of quality and worth you will end up with people preferring the content that seems to be preferred by others.
Our whole “user pays” free market is controlled by the corporations using the “like” method.
Those with better advertising get more likes, the advertising industry prove this decades ago, how many I am not sure maybe a century ago. When you but a product from a shop that is “liking” it, and surely you can see how that works out for the new creators. Badly.
Polls do not work if you can see the voting trend…confirmation bias.
Is there not the functionality to keep the results locked?
If pay-per-like is to be implemented at the core network level then isn’t this a rather complex piece to program in. You would have to cross multiple layers to do it.
If pay-per-like is above the core network (APP) then really this poll is useless since you are simply having two polls. One for pay-per-like yes/no AND ptp yes/no of two entirely different parts of the network.
And ignores that you can have both PtP which helps the new creator that doesn’t have the advertising might to sociologically control the masses and their likes. AND you can have the pay-per-like on top to go back to the current world view system
where is the option for having BOTH
You CANNOT borrow against the freemarket in ANY FORM.
Like law of physics that cannot be seen; there are natural mathematical laws (known as the science of economics) concerning how commerce takes place. Borrowing resources from the MAID SAFE network (free market) to reallocate them via some other mechanism is SOCIALISM.
I have seen three separate threads now concerning these payment schemes, and I praise the almighty that each and every one of these votes have failed.
Every feature in MAID safe gives the network value: Encrypted video, encrypted messaging, encrypted web traffic etc… are all features that provide value to the MAID SAFE network, but they are all utilities that will aid mutually beneficial trading/selling over the MAID safe network. Building utilities will grow the market.
Automated redistribution of value won’t.
Considering that no pay-the-producer is that. You need to understand the purpose and reason for them.
@dirvine initial reason was to build utility in the network, to encourage quality content to be stored on the network , which makes it a network people want to use, and thus provide for a more healthy network. The big issue at the beginning is that the people using the network will be small and limited content will be uploaded. So by providing a system that rewards (in a small way) creators to upload content to the SAFE network will broaden the content available and improve the quality (in general)
PtP is not attempting to redistribute wealth (it does not take from your wallet or reduce farming rewards) nor does it attempt to value the content uploaded. It is taking from itself and giving to the creators a tiny reward and the people decide value by the amount of downloads of that content.
I don’t see that, with the 1st poll having 58% supporting some form of PtP and 34% against.[quote=“cl0ck3d, post:13, topic:7717”]
Borrowing resources from the MAID SAFE network (free market) to reallocate them via some other mechanism is SOCIALISM.
There is no borrowing, it is paying. And look at the free market today, the big centralised corporations have basically cornered the market and the relatively few (market share wise) independent ones are usually struggling. Great thing our current free market system is isn’t it. Take microsoft they buy out the small fry who are struggling to remove competition.
PtP actually benefits free market in leveling the playing field more, and with SAFE’s APPs allows them to compete more fairly.
I’m not sure we can fix “herd” mentality. It’s part of human nature related to survival instinct. I’m sorry to break it to you, but that is the world we live in. Unless you can reprogram human beings, the non-critical thinkers will follow the masses.
Yes, Pay-per-Like will suffer similar effects, just like Free-Likes and Paid-Likes (AD Marketing).
The one “improvement” when proposing this APP idea… is that it takes money and puts it back into the SAFE Economy. In order for that to be possible, I need a way to donate/recycle Safecoin to the SAFE Network.
Unfortunately, I’m getting resistant on both ideas.
I realise this and while PtP may not be the best way it at least reduces this effect a lot. Yes I know people’s downloading habits will be affected, but they don’t suffer the perceived negative attention if they listen to a “unpopular” song.
So is the pay-per-like meant to not give the like money to the creator, but to give it back to the network (donate/recycle)???
And some support to.
Originally, I wanted to indirectly fund the creator using farm attempts. But I’m always considering what others say, especially those I debate. And I concluded it would be most ideal to have 100% go to the Network.
I must have missed that point. It does present a new light on the proposal. With no particular creator rewarded then as far as the network & creators are concerned then the mob mentality does not really affect the outcome of pay-per-like. It only affects the popularity of each creator.
It is taking from itself and giving to the creators a tiny reward
Itself - is exactly my point. It’s taking decision making power away from the market. Any operator of a free market should operate in the market with full ability to determine where value should flow. This is because individuals decide for themselves the most mutually beneficial trade. These mechanisms of redistributing value are impining on the decision making capability of the market.
Corned the market how? Did they take a gun and back the market in a corner? Did they make the market beg for it’s life? ** No, wrong ** - They used lobbyists to buy regulations from the government to corner the market. to remove competion.
A competitive market is how we grow a free-market. What you’re arguing isn’t an example of a free market and it hasn’t been a free market since the 1800s I’m talking about a true free market.
Not a market driven by mechanisms(regulations) created by human hand. Let the market remain free and competitive don’t institute bogus redistribution mechanisms.
You can choose to not GET something thereby making a decision not to allow any award to go there at all
@cl0ck3d http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-congress-gun-idUSKBN0NC2CS20150421 sometimes people go crazy… what’s that thing in the office for?
No the market decides to get the content. It is very much still the market decides.
If the market does not ever get that content then NO rewards are given for that content.
You talk as if its ANY & EVERY GETs in the network rewards ALL creators a tiny tiny amount. NO and again no, it is only paid when the market (users) decide to access that particular content.
Thus the market/user is placing value onto the particular piece of content.
Ask SONY, MGM, Microsoft, IBM, COKE, PESPI with perhaps 10 other parent companies, who own the majority of the products you buy. COKE alone sell over 1/2 the confectionery products in the western world.
They did that using “free market”, money talks, mob mentality, etc.
At least PtP is bucking that trend without socialism, but a leveling of the playing field
Microsoft, COKE, PEPSI, IBM and most of the others have not relied on that , but by buying out the competitors using their “Free Market” clout. Free market in todays world quickly turns into corporate dominance. It is the smoking, oil & gas and similar that use the lobbying, and only a VERY small subset of the top 500 parent companies, and even a small subset of the top 20 who sell the majority (excluding the smoke, oil, gas and similar) of products.[quote=“cl0ck3d, post:19, topic:7717”]
Not a market driven by mechanisms(regulations) created by human hand.
It is not a regulation, but a mechanism that allow a free to get network to give incentives to creators to supply quality original content, rather than nothing, or just trailers.
Free market on SAFE is the ability of the user to decide which content they want to download, without regard to corporations because the little guy is now on a much more level playing field. THUS SAFEnetwork is more a free market place than we’ve seen with many
I concede that point but you assume the producer knows about SAFE, that he is interested in paying the SAFE tax to register his work, and that people will actually try to look for the original (the first SAFE copy) of an otherwise good sounding MP3 file (what would be their incentive for that and how would they check very worthy piece of work they come across?).
It is a theoretical aspiration. Once there is a SAFE search engine, customers demand that sites post “proof of original” (which can’t exist - unless there is AI that intelligently scans the network and finds true original, but who will set the criteria?) metadata for each multimedia and text they publish, most sites won’t bother.
So nothing will happen for at least 5 years, possibly longer (why would a participant on the network, unless he belongs to a tiny minority of reward-the-author fanatics, accept to provide compute resources (i.e. pay IP tax) for this searching and analysis?
I don’t know how effective the walletmark solution will be. Or if people (creators and consumers) will bother to “support” a proof-of-original APP (Creator Search Engine). The best we can do is create tools, and let people to use them.
Your point also stresses how public perception affects SAFE adoption. This may in fact take 5 years, more or less.