All of this debate about PtP etc brings me to a serious question.
Why does content exist?
Some content exists as speech. If I have an idea, and I want to convince you I am right, then You ought not be required to pay me to witness about Jesus or Volkswagons, Budweiser or Ron Paul to you… It’s my agenda, I should do it on my dime.
Some content exists as a service… Interstate 90 is closed at milepost 91. Take another route. Chances are good, that If I give a message like that – I am doing it for the good of others, and it is reasonable that the community should pay the bill.
Some content exists for profit. Entertainment art – I made this great movie - paid these popular actors - I think you will entertained if you watch – pay us $X and we will let you watch. This isn’t “free speech” the agenda is to make something you will enjoy enough to pay for, and to return a profit. If the community pays for this at their rate, I will not take massive risk because the reward I can get in return is rather fixed. Entertainment is not a human right – it ought not be funded by the community as if it where one.
The issues may get quite murky – Because art carried political, philosophical, religious and commercial content. I may be trying to making a song or a movie to convince others to adopt my perspective (Which should be done on my dime) Or I could be trying to put a message out there that will resonate with a certain crowd so that they will purchase my work commercially. (Which should be done at my risk with profit coming at their discretion on their dime) But chances that I am doing it as a public service and it actually IS a public service and not a witness at the doorstep or a telemarketer are rather slim…
But the idea that all content ought to be paid ignores these nuances. If we pay the telemarketers to call us, what ought we expect them to do? In essence that is what a significant portion of the SAFE community is proposing. There is an underlying assumption that content is good, and deserves to be rewarded. But if you reward content, you will get content for the sake of the reward.
People like to hear themselves talk. There is no shortage of content. There is a shortage of good content. But you will never be successful in funding good content by just funding for the sake of funding.
This makes perfect sense. If you are paid whenever your content is consumed, your intention will be to produce as much content as possible and to broadcast it to as many people as possible. → This sounds like what ads are today… Advertising videos popping up in your background will earn a lot…
What are quality characteristics for chontent? Hard to say globally. One thing however, if content is good, you spend more time with it than with bad content. You value good content with the time you have at your disposal.
There’s a vague principle here, but the analysis doesn’t follow. Putting up a website is very different from telemarketing. Content will get views because overall, people want to view it, and choose to visit it. No system can reward content perfectly - we couldn’t even agree on what that means - but it could still function in a way that is better than the alternative. That is the question, and while we will still have disagreements over which is best, we can at least find out what the different schemes achieve. If we just speculate and push our opinions, we won’t find that out.
I would point out that when discussing end-users accessing content, it is likely that they would be using some form of GUI/APP to do so. There are many business models that can rely on the content APP to set price enforcement, or something similar (tipping/paywall/etc), and indeed, the network need not subsidize the actual content itself.
What we’re searching for is a positive feedback loop. One that benefits (eventually, in one way or another, to a certain extent) the content creators, the farmers, the network (safecoin balance), the end-users and the app devs. Am I forgetting anyone (besides the NSA - they won’t benefit, and that’s a feature, not a bug)
Not really. You only click on thing because somebody provided you a link. You don’t know if it is till you get there. You don’t know the quality of the content, You don’t know if they are trying to sell you something or if they are trying to provide you service. Something may also be seen as a service if you are “in the crowd” (A Christian devotional, or a political alert from a party you are affiliated with), but if you are outside the crowd it might seem like a unwanted witnessing that you don’t care to pay for.
I download hundreds of facebook meme’s every day… Most of them are junk, certainly not worth paying for. The fact that somebody wants to communicate to me does not mean that the message is worthy of reward. In most cases the reward of getting the message out is more than enough reward.
The difference is that you won’t go back. You won’t send your friends. You’ll find ways to avoid being directed towards such things in the future.
I like your analysis that initiates the thread. It’s true that content varies in value and applicability depending on intent, and also recipient. But let’s not forget that an attribute of the SAFE Network is that it puts more control in the individuals hands, which also makes the individual more responsible for their own experience.
This is a tough area to sort out. I do like the idea of popular content being supported, but it needs to be equitable and not support spam.
If you haven’t found a way to communicate a sentient being through the pipes then its all simply communication, even the system itself. Except for money, no bankers aren’t communication, they don’t get to hide behind speech. And free speech is not full of noise and interruption.
Yes, but they where already paid for my visit. And those who agree with the meme may send it to all of their friends.
Most content isn’t watched over and over and over again. It is one and done. The message was communicated. There isn’t a lot of reason to read the same message over and over and over again. One might watch their favorite movies and music repeatedly. But blog posts? Not Likely.
All in all Network traffic is a really bad reason to pay content. The network is too stupid to know what is what and why.
Any content worth creating can find a funding model without the network. Any content that is made because it is getting paid to be made is going to be spammy in nature… The internet already has plenty of this, “Click here to see what happens next” We ought not encourage more.
I think I am simply in agreement with @jreighley. Its all speech and you can’t make people pay for it if they don’t want to. You can’t coerce on speech without becoming Adobe and losing your credibility.
If you can’t admit there’s a difference between a website and telemarketing, or can’t recognise that the difference undermines your point, there really isn’t any point discussing this with you. I’m surprised, because you obviously are intelligent, but there it is. Even quite subtle differences can have large effects, but it doesn’t take much consideration to see that the differences here are large and that the way the two operate will be very different. Unless you’d like to provide some thought through analysis to show that despite the differences, the two have the same effect. But the last time I suggested you think something through, your response was that it was so obvious it didn’t require it. It is my contention that had you done some analysis in that earlier case, it would quickly have revealed it was not so simple. I haven’t done this myself formally, but a little thought has revealed that the 10% thing is much more complex than it has been presented. The possibility of exploring that still exists, but few here seem willing to actually think things through. Those who are willing, can’t do everything though, so it remains a “scarce resource” with plenty of opportunity to shine for those willing to pursue those issues.
Anyway, as I say, no more point me discussing things with you.
Obviously I was using a little hyperbole… But that doesn’t undermine the point…
If somebody is choosing to try to persuade me of something, it ought to be on their dime, not mine. If PtP where installed there would be a network subsidy for such. Be it little or big, It isn’t right.
Facebook for example is full of Meme’s with people trying to persuade me of all kinds of things. That’s fine. I just don’t think that behavior needs to be rewarded by the network. Transmitting the message is the reward enough by itself. Encouraging it by paying people to produce more and more of that stuff isn’t going to make the network stronger. It will make it more facebook like and more annoying.
Why the sharp attitude? I don’t think I have been rude, or mean… I read and respond… If you don’t want to discuss, don’t discuss. Fine with me, but don’t act all self righteous about it.
I look at the internet posts today, and ask myself “how many of these deserve to be rewarded” and the answer is “few”. The reward is freedom of speech. Too much of a good thing is not a good thing.
That behavior isn’t rewarded by the network, not all content is rewarded , the popular content that is regularly viewed is rewarded .
You post crap memes online that no one views you have just uploaded crap content to the network no one will view and have paid to put it onto the network but you wont earn anything from it.
This isn’t a useless content. I know where my friends stand on certain issues – If I am an advocate for one of those issues I may really enjoy it. But that doesn’t mean it needs to be subsidized.
And that is my point. If somebody is selling ANYTHING, it ought not be subsidized. And a sizable portion of the internet is somebody selling something, be it a political idea, a religious idea, a philosophical idea, or a new car — Even Art is often commercial or advocacy.
A blanket system ignores all of the nuance and rewards all content ignorantly.
OK, thanks for your measured and polite response. I appreciate that, and I’m also guilty of hyperbole from time to time (amongst many other sins ) .
I’m sorry I appeared sharp or self righteous. Fair criticism, noted, and I will try to do better.
What triggered me was the way you used such a dubious comparison to argue such a strongly opposing position. @gohan00760 makes a good counter, though I agree with you there is still an issue here.
For me though, I get very tired of seeing discussions about this feature or that feature, where people take very hard positions one way or another, which shed little light on the actuality of the problems being discussed, and rarely get into discussing how to address those problems - either with better analysis to validate them, or suggestions on how to tweak the idea to defeat them, or alternatives that achieve what is desired without those drawbacks.
In this instance, how about we think through the specific case you raise of people sharing memes on facebook, identify precisely as we can the way in which this mechanism would operate, and then consider ways too improve on that?
My point in the whole thread was to let people think of content in a different way than they where thinking of content. I think most people are thinking of content as movies or music, but really a sizable portion of internet content is persuasive expression.
My feelings on PtP have been clear – I think that it is better to be handled at the community level with altcoins or the like, and the network could support those communities token via farmers choosing where their surpluses be sent. Altcoins should be fairly easy to build within SAFE.
This allows content providers to be supported, but it does not do it in a rigid manner… It does not treat all content the same. It does not pay traffic just for being traffic. It allows for communities to innovate and compete to create more efficient and robust economic models and payment systems.
The easiest solution to errant PtP payments is “don’t go there”. I have proposed another solution, but it hasn’t gotten much traction.
) .