Beware the man who offers you an ongoing "free" lunch.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Information should NOT be free, and other crucial ideas
- Thread starter icehorse
- Start date
Beware the man who offers you an ongoing "free" lunch.
If an advertiser wants to pay me to watch an ad, I'd consider it especially if the pay was meaningful.
How much should we charge you for use of RF?
Ha! Well, afaik, I can either see a lot of ads, or pay to be a premium member, correct? I work hard to avoid ads, so I was more than happy to pay to be a premium member of RF
==
40+ posts into this thread, and I have to say this isn't the sort of debate I was expecting.
There seems to be an overwhelming notion that you guys think that when you use sites like Google and FB, you're getting something for nothing.
Really? Do you really think that? Can I interest you in a perpetual motion machine? I've got a few in stock, really cheap!
40+ posts into this thread, and I have to say this isn't the sort of debate I was expecting.
There seems to be an overwhelming notion that you guys think that when you use sites like Google and FB, you're getting something for nothing.
Really? Do you really think that? Can I interest you in a perpetual motion machine? I've got a few in stock, really cheap!
How many ads are there? I mean maybe it’s cos I use Adblock or I’m on my phone, but is it really that chockers? Only ads I see are on YouTube. I recognise how insidious they are. I recognise that they control the information. But I see this model as just as controlling as the oligarchs. Perhaps more insidious. Because it’s essentially tying one’s income to information.Hey @SomeRandom
Well, I think we all dislike advertising, so there's a start
As for why it should cost anything at all? Ummm.. because it costs money to provide it? You seem to be imagining that there is such a thing as a free lunch?? There isn't. full stop.
You complain that I just accept the insidious nature of capitalism and then turn around and say well everything costs money?
I’m saying why are we trying to fix capitalism with even more capitalism?
It seems that you're hoping that you're currently getting an ongoing free lunch, no?
I think the reality is that most of us haven't really thought of FB and Google like this before. I can understand it's a bit shocking to realize that you've been paying all along without realizing it
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
You tube content creators serve as a great example although they are trying hard to con and stiff them nowadays from the revenue and keeping it for themselves.If an advertiser wants to pay me to watch an ad, I'd consider it especially if the pay was meaningful.
Curious George
Veteran Member
Why do you think ads will stop of ppl pay?Hey @SomeRandom
Well, I think we all dislike advertising, so there's a start
As for why it should cost anything at all? Ummm.. because it costs money to provide it? You seem to be imagining that there is such a thing as a free lunch?? There isn't. full stop.
McBell
Unbound
Wait...
Are you saying that we should have to pay for the nonsense that passes for "News"?
Good
Free lunch? I thought we established that we pay through advertising. But yes I’d rather that than put up essentially pay to win mechanics on something as important as information. Would I rather we wrest control away from these companies? Of course. I recognise that taking back control of information away from the Zuckerbergs of the world is a good goal.
But to just put all pay walls to everyone is not a good solution, imo.
Because it creates more disparity. Or at least a great potential for it. I don’t have a lot of faith that greed won’t win out among the populace and use that to gain themselves more power in the future.
Having poorer folks rely on what, coupons or something for information? In the age of information? No.
Teach critical thinking skills and how to evaluate information.
Instilling Vetting skills in people is more practical.
I know I’ve been paying for it. I live in a capitalist country that does not give out anything for free. Even as the US calls my country socialist lolI think the reality is that most of us haven't really thought of FB and Google like this before. I can understand it's a bit shocking to realize that you've been paying all along without realizing it
Last edited:
Lanier is saying (and I agree with him), that we should be able to choose what information we consume, and we should also explicitly pay for what we consume, rather than letting nefarious and manipulative corporations and advertisers extract their fees from us unknowingly.
We Never Know
No Slack
So the poor shouldn't have information? (If they cant afford it they can't get it)
sealchan
Well-Known Member
The internet is full of people who long to give good, hard-earned information for free. I can think no better way to secure opportunity and democracy than to foster this personal expression of compassion.
As I said in an earlier post, we could give the poor some sort of "information credits". But notice the interesting shift that would happen in that case. We would be acknowledging that the info wasn't "free" in the first place. So "info credits" would be like food stamps. Food isn't free either.
Of course, but this would be the relatively rare exception to the rule. There are charities that provide meals for the poor. That's awesome, but we don't imagine that food is free, do we?
Kooky
Freedom from Sanity
It doesn't seem like his woud-be customers are in control of the flow of information here, they are merely paying a fee to access what's already there. In order to retain customers, any such operation would likely curate its content in order to cater to the interests and biases of its audience, much like any other media operation.
In light of this, what "power" is he "putting back" into our hands, exactly?
Of course, if we trap our minds in the notion that capitalistic market economies dominated by profit-making enterprises are the only possible way to distribute necessary resources, then the logical conclusion is to privatize and monetize any and every part of our society, including people's access to factual and truthful information. Lanier seems to have recognized that, but perhaps has not dared to drill deeper down this subject, onto the fundamental question of whether this is a good thing and whether and why it ostensibly has to be this way to begin with.
Information isn't static, it needs constant refreshing. Earlier in this thread, someone said something like "Hey, FB should be paying us!" - and that's a key aspect of the idea. Everyone who posts on FB is giving away valuable information to Zuckerberg. Zuckerberg ought to be paying you a bit. Of course we (I guess), want FB to stay in business, so FB still has to make a profit. But Zuckerberg is a multi-billionaire, there's some room in FB's budget to make some small payments back to it's contributors. And make no mistake, when you post on FB you are a contributor of value. Maybe not the value you think you're providing, but value none the less.
Access to un-manipulated information as a start.
I don't think Lanier is taking capitalism as an irrevocable assumption. But providing a steady stream of new information has a cost associated with it. Someone has to pay for that. Currently, consumers are paying by accepting advertising and data manipulation into our lives. We - the consumers - are at the mercy of advertisers and manipulators. Lanier is proposing that we change that.
Why shouldn't information be traded openly and honestly. Why not let true supply and demand work?
Another thing to keep in mind is that - much like food - much of the time the info that the poor get is of low quality. Many poor people are not only in nutritional deserts, they're also in information deserts. You're using a computer or a tablet to hold up your end of this conversation. That's a luxury many poor people do not have.
I would suggest that the quality of information you can get on broadcast TV is - on average - quite low.