throwawawathrow

That huge, complex social construct is called advertising and it is something HN users should know about seeing how most of their jobs is serving as much of it to as many Internet users as possible. You wouldn't think HN users would get into a job that involves shaping the minds of literal millions of people without being aware of the consequences that would entail, would you?

Yeah as I alluded to in this thread I believe most gamers have been female for some time, but somehow for many people (read: many men) they don't 'count' because they're mobile games, or casual games, or not real games. At least that's the responses I've got every time the subject came up in previous discussions.

Alright I'll remove the snark. The question still stands though

My experience as well. People on this site tend to think everything goes back to hunter gatherer societies and genes (a field they generally know little about) when the most plausible explanation (advertising) is something they know a lot more about. Kinda puzzling, or maybe a coping mechanism.

"But what about my business model? Don't you know I have an inalienable right to it?"

I have a hard time believing that someone on HN, a crowd whose primary job involves using free software and whose primary hobby is reading Wikipedia articles, would just idly speculate about things against the most blatant contrary evidence.

But then, this being HN, this sort of speculation is to be expected, heh.

>I don't even understand how this idea survives concrete examples.

Lol you don't understand how knowledge can be shared between two or more parties without one of them making a profit? Am I reading this right?

People are already making content without monetizing it, and have been for decades. As alien a way of thinking as it may seem to some, many human beings do not need a bizarre system of 'market-based incentives' to get anything done at all. They just do it, out of passion, boredom, to learn, or to share with friends. Are you seriously implying the 'young kid starting out' has Youtube monetization all setup in order, or has sponsors knocking on their door?

You're conflating 'no content at all' and 'cutting 95% of the Internet'. Honestly there's so much stuff out there that you wouldn't even notice even if 99.9% of the Internet content were removed overnight. There are always people somewhere willing to create content without serving you ads. This much content, however little (in proportion to the rest) should be enough to satiate anyone's needs. Who needs the rest.

'What about my business model' is not a valid argument. You are not in fact entitled to one. Personally I'd rather see 95% less 'content' on the Internet if it meant it were ad free. I'd rather have no Facebook than one that serves you personalized ads. I'd rather have no online news media than news websites that serve ads. I'd rather have no television programs than watch programs with commercials. 'Content creators' often overestimate how much people care about their 'content' and they think we couldn't do without them. Well, most of us can. And most of us hate ads.

I'm sure, in an ad-free world, that content creators who really care would find a way to make it work. Maybe there'd be less content this way, but so be it. Quality isn't quantity.

As far as I remember there was an Internet without ads. I don't think we need literal garbage stimuli for media to thrive.

Yeah that's the point. Fuck ads.

The world would definitely be better off without facebook. It's worse than useless.

Seriously, how would your life change dramatically without Facebook?

I used to have a lot of respect for rms. Sure he was quirky but at least he was principled. Sure his last actual free software contribution was in 1995 but he did a lot of advocacy afterwards. Sure he was very annoyingly intransigeant but he said things that were true but inconvenient to hear (regarding Facebook, Google, Amazon et al.). All in all, I thought that for all his flaws, the world needed someone like him.

But now, it seems everyone's coming out of the woodwork with one damning story after another that I didn't know of. I don't know if the spider plant thing is true, but the pleasure cards thing is ludicrous. Looking back, one can't help but wonder if in hindsight he was more of a hindrance to the cause.

If anything, the disgrace of rms should be the final nail to the coffin of the so-called hacker spirit as enshrined by the likes of him and esr, and which I've always kind of perceived as 'you can be as much of an obtuse dick as you like as long as you're technically correct'. Maybe such 'hackers' were necessary in 1970 when computing was niche and restricted to certain demographics for various historical/sociological reasons. Now that the pool of available talent has largely increased, we should ask ourselves: for one brillant but obtuse dick, how many brillant and chill people are out there? Is it worth latching on the former at the risk of missing out on potential scores of the latter?