Is the idea here that the internet becomes a place only for people who are intrinsically motivated to do whatever they’re doing?
No, why? I think it’s fine if people waste time online. The harm from that is self-limiting, as long as there are no companies trying to escalate, manipulate & profit from that harm.
No, why? I think it’s fine if people waste time online.
Huh, I didn’t mean for “wasting time online” to be a key element in my sentence.
(I think I’m about as confused about the inference you made in your comment about my comment about your comment as you were about mine)
It seemed like a natural consequence that if you remove financial motivators from the attention economy, most of what you’re left with is people using the internet to either do things that they personally were motivated to do, or are paid to by someone directly motivated to sink money into the system)
(There’d probably be a reorganization of currently attention-economy websites into “store” websites, which I think would be fine. There’s a talk transcript somewhere about how there was a window where the internet might have been built around microtransactions and then for some reason wasn’t, which would have enabled a very different incentive landscape)
Ah I see, I misread your comment. Yeah, if my plan were implemented, people wouldn’t be able to make a living on youtube. But that seems like a small effect, because very few people make a living on youtube.
Would you get most of the benefit from this if you were able to ban advertising specifically? (not sure if you can easily do it that easily, people can probably do various under-the-table things to trade advertisements, and selling user data for advertisements offline might be an issue.)
Patreon-style funding schemes seem more likely to be sane-in-the-limit to me.
No, why? I think it’s fine if people waste time online. The harm from that is self-limiting, as long as there are no companies trying to escalate, manipulate & profit from that harm.
Huh, I didn’t mean for “wasting time online” to be a key element in my sentence.
(I think I’m about as confused about the inference you made in your comment about my comment about your comment as you were about mine)
It seemed like a natural consequence that if you remove financial motivators from the attention economy, most of what you’re left with is people using the internet to either do things that they personally were motivated to do, or are paid to by someone directly motivated to sink money into the system)
(There’d probably be a reorganization of currently attention-economy websites into “store” websites, which I think would be fine. There’s a talk transcript somewhere about how there was a window where the internet might have been built around microtransactions and then for some reason wasn’t, which would have enabled a very different incentive landscape)
Ah I see, I misread your comment. Yeah, if my plan were implemented, people wouldn’t be able to make a living on youtube. But that seems like a small effect, because very few people make a living on youtube.
Would you get most of the benefit from this if you were able to ban advertising specifically? (not sure if you can easily do it that easily, people can probably do various under-the-table things to trade advertisements, and selling user data for advertisements offline might be an issue.)
Patreon-style funding schemes seem more likely to be sane-in-the-limit to me.
Yeah, that’d probably work.