I'm confused. You want people to write all content for free? Whilst that works for a lot of people who do it in their spare time, it does restrict anyone looking to write professionally from contributing.
Not parent, but I would absolutely _demand_ people to write all content for free.
I refuse to pay a single cent for anything that is even remotely accessible on the Internet and does not result in a physical tangible good being delivered to me, of which I pay $15/mo as acceptable rate-limited mobile LTE bandwidth -- my only communication related recurring cost.
There are several reasons at play here:
- Content quality is not correlated with amount an author is "compensated". In fact quality is almost universally _inversely_ correlated with profitability. Once dollars are attached, out of the woodwork comes a bunch of charlatans peddling useless shit that will not only give you no useful advantage in seeking external information but will actively degrade your life either through dubious advice that will trash your health, finances, legal status, cognitive & mental state, relationships, you name it, or through malevolent action such as selling your privacy or methodical persuasion in you undertaking self-defeating behaviors by hijacking basic human emotional reactions.
- Time has shown repeatedly that volunteers are the entire backbone of quality information sources. I come to HN to have some chance of experts congregating for an actual discussion on certain topics. QA forums, encyclopedias, topic-specific discussion forums, educational materials, news aggregation, scientific research, _all_ is higher quality in volunteer communities before it's essentially leeched for profit by journals, website owners, policy spinmasters, malvertising business, and venture capital.
- "Writing professionally" is not a useful skill in itself, no matter the fantasy colleges want to dream up by funneling the otherwise academically unfit into a program that will lead to a degree thus allowing them to join in on the unnecessary inflationary credentialization of _remedial_ skills. Linguistic mastery is a necessary but not sufficient requirement for creating useful information, you first need a deep understanding of the material you wish to cover. I'd much rather read barely comprehensible jargon from a deranged genius than an eloquent soliloquy by some shill with no idea of what he's talking about other than a general idea that permuting a dictionary in the right magical incantation will summon a paycheck at the end of the week. If you have skills that allowed you to amass wisdom in a field to the point that it would benefit someone else, there are _much_ more efficient and useful means to acquire income and instead use "writing" as a tool for social meaning and development either through reciprocity, self-selection, altruism, whatever.
- The greatest costs are borne not in writing but in deciphering meaning. The combined readership burden of filtering out the wheat from the chaff will _always_ exceed the cost of an author even doing "important" research. This is the crucial point of it all, with some smart people realizing that if information has any value besides propaganda it's due to careful curation, summarizing, and tailoring to an individual's goals and instantaneous state-of-mind, while even smarter people realizing that this will _never_ scale as a business model. Even "clever" workarounds to this problem by infiltrating an individual's web-of-trust in recommendations always end up backfiring. After decades of this scheme being retried and rehashed, I now am completely confident in ignoring whatever bullshit du jour comes out of the mouths of family and friends, and am even running up against the problem of being contrarian against my own internal thoughts.
- Even if against all the odds that you paid someone to get valuable information in the long run you'll regret it. Give an inch, they take a mile. Everyone who is dependent on a paycheck dreams of eventually retiring, and quickly to boot once the actuaries remind them of the future. Once you paid someone for content, you just anchored the negotiations of tomorrow and crystallized the form of how protection money must be paid. "Oh I know you paid back then, but life isn't getting any cheaper and I'd like to get to the beach someday without working so I'm really sorry but I _need_ to add some 'features' that will juice my revenue!" Negotiating with terrorists is not a strategy to get to a stable equilibrium in an iterated game -- the cat has been let out of the bag and it's never going back in. Wake up.
Your views are factually incorrect, don’t suggest any real solution, and in my view somewhat extremist. A realistic solution must consider the in turn actions of all influential parties invloved.
It’s economics. It’s requires modeling, strategies, and thinking equally about all parties because it doesn’t matter whether you like them or not it matters what the future would look like a few years out.
This is not personal I have no ties to ad revenue or professional writing. It’s about putting emotion and philosophy in one basket and solutions in another. You’re allowed to have both, but the latter should be dispassionate.
Just one example on the facts, writing professionally is provably a useful skill. Take even what you may consider a mundane job of writing instruction manuals. if it weren’t useful there wouldn’t be jobs and people being paid money to do it. There’s all kinds of writing jobs that require little independent domain expertise. That’s before we even discuss original or creative content.
You say that like it's a bad thing. Once you've stretched the limits of acceptability beyond the capacity of short-term memory, anything of a 'compromise' is just a token dilution that keeps the same status quo intact in everything except a temporary face-saving apology.
A realistic solution must consider the actions of all parties involved, but it doesn't have to actually appease any of those parties with anything they may want.
It's currently an adtech bubble, foaming to the brim. People speculating in attention-based revenue and side-dealing surveillance armaments through malware distribution to ferment the process should feel the losses when the deal goes bad to set an example that hurting others isn't going to get you a bailout. I don't care about your moral plea for "equality" where we make sure no one suffers the consequences of damaging the commons such as the intrinsic value of information and content.
Because of the adtech bubble, we have a _huge_ problem of noise pollution. Valuable public research cannot be funded effectively because the public realizes the history of paid "results" to turn a profit for media proselytizing and reframing unpopular governmental policies.
Public institutions are no longer credible due to the obvious connections between surveillance, profit, and legislation that is effectively mediated through media companies.
There's a real solution here: puncture the bubble by drying up the money stream. It'll help the useful creators in the long term that are being suppressed by the influx of dumb content and blackholing clickbait algorithms designed to minimize utility to maximize profitability.
Now, for writing professionally being a useful skill. That paragraph was obviously in the context of becoming something like a journalist, blogger, or news pundit where your income is paid by this scam of exchanging between attention and currency though a network of super shady intermediaries.
If you're writing instruction manuals for a living, you're not getting paid for how long eyeballs are on your work so that someone can monetize a reader's susceptibility to suggestion. In fact if I hired you, you'd be paid by how _quickly_ a human can view your instructions and move on with their life in doing something productive.
And that's exactly my point: I know many communications major graduates and many engineering major graduates. The former usually went into the program as a last resort for underwhelming academic performance and trying to latch on to the hype before it bursts rather than being gifted in communication ability. The latter could definitely transition to professional writing, not because of language skills that are essentially expected anyways but because their deep understanding in a subject allows them to distill useful insights that are rather hard to crack otherwise.
For example, I love IKEA/Lego instruction manuals not because a random "professional writer" with no independent domain expertise was able to checkmark that off his daily tasklist, but because the manual was made by people with incredibly sophisticated knowledge of how to visualize and communicate the ideas of physical assembly and knew their audience appreciates that expertise. If you're able to document the assembly process, you're qualified to critique and help improve the usability, design, and even materials engineering that ultimately influences what you write in the manual.
This reinforces the idea that if you're just a writer, you're useless because you _should_ be funneling what insight you distilled back to the process your're documenting. And then you're not really a writer, but an engineer.
And just because there are jobs and people being paid money to do it doesn't mean it's useful at all. Biggest fallacy I've ever heard.
The best content I've ever read has been books that each took years to write. After that come NPR and the Washington Post. Then Ars. I pay for all of them, and everything else I read, present company included, isn't even in the same league of quality.
I guess I'm saying that I couldn't disagree with you more; if all the content I didn't pay for went away, I doubt I'd be negativity effected at all.
Very true. There's a proliferation of content nowadays but most of them are just of absolutely horrible quality. I regret having wasted quite some time on hastily written free contents instead of more systematic books.
