[HN Gopher] Byrne Hobart on the financialisation of everything
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Byrne Hobart on the financialisation of everything
        
       Author : ubac
       Score  : 96 points
       Date   : 2021-10-27 18:26 UTC (1 days ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (thebrowser.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (thebrowser.com)
        
       | BitwiseFool wrote:
       | I had hoped that the continual advancement in electronics would
       | mean the marginal cost of simply "putting something out there" on
       | the internet would drop to near zero.
       | 
       | While several platforms exist where a user can basically
       | broadcast for 'free' (like on Twitter/Facebook/Medium/YouTube)
       | all of that is still wrapped up in some kind of monetization or
       | other scheme.
       | 
       | I'm not naive enough to think a significant number of people
       | would produce high quality content for free, but I do yearn for
       | the days of the old 90's Netscape Composer websites that were
       | chock full of information with no expectation of turning it into
       | some kind of revenue stream.
        
         | meheleventyone wrote:
         | Thing is masses of people make high quality content for free on
         | all these platforms (and elsewhere) it's just next to no one
         | gets to see it. Massive centralization happened because
         | discovery of content is easier for the audience. But discovery
         | of specific content has not gotten any better, if anything in a
         | world curated by algorithm with much greater participation it's
         | got significantly worse.
         | 
         | The main issue is both monetization and distribution/discovery
         | for digital content follow a power law. If you want to make
         | something and have an audience you need to be one of the
         | vanishingly small number of people that "make it". Otherwise
         | you're just facing a massive uphill climb against entrenched
         | people who hold all the cards.
         | 
         | Right now if you want a good chance to get into a space you
         | either need to have big resources behind you or to be one of
         | the first movers into it. If you're some random person even if
         | you make great stuff you stand next to no chance of blowing up
         | because the entire audience is hovered up by the big names.
         | This leads to people burning out en masse and their content
         | being even harder to find.
         | 
         | Basically we need more equitable discovery of quality content
         | rather than just chasing metrics which leads to this
         | entrenchment. And stable career paths for people.
        
           | nullc wrote:
           | > it's just next to no one gets to see it.
           | 
           | It's not quite that bad, but our standards of success have
           | changed.
           | 
           | If your garage band threw a couple concerts and across them
           | got and attendance of 1000 people that would have been a
           | smashing success.
           | 
           | Put your music on youtube and get 1000 listeners and it's a
           | failure.
        
           | agumonkey wrote:
           | centralization also caused a natural pressure to prune all
           | the mild content, it was inefficient (lots of politics and
           | stuff like that) but it made a kind of ladder.. internet
           | creates puddles, anybody can join, so they do and they had
           | little value
        
         | helen___keller wrote:
         | > I had hoped that the continual advancement in electronics
         | would mean the marginal cost of simply "putting something out
         | there" on the internet would drop to near zero.
         | 
         | This has happened even if you're excluding the usual ad-funded
         | crowd. The difference is that supporting a billion users will
         | obviously never be near zero cost, so any platforms with that
         | level of usage are the ones with monetization streams (or are
         | venture funded and will be monetized in the future, looking at
         | you Discord).
         | 
         | With that in mind you can actually self host at a near-zero
         | cost, entry tier VPS instances are dirt cheap, and there's even
         | cheaper choices if your content is simple enough (e.g. just a
         | static HTML site). If you want to store a few GB of content,
         | you can get that on a major cloud for very cheap. All of this
         | together, you can get a significant amount of data hosted with
         | many 9s of uptime on a large cloud for a scant few dollars a
         | month. If you want to use your own hardware, you can buy a
         | raspberry pi and get hosting ridiculously cheap.
         | 
         | All that said, these options require technical expertise, which
         | I think is the real failure. Lots of people have content but
         | not the technical expertise to put it anywhere other than
         | youtube/instagram/reddit/facebook/twitter
        
           | simonh wrote:
           | Companies like square space and wix will host your content
           | for very little, and provide all the tools you need. Google
           | Sites is free. I share content in Google docs.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2021-10-28 23:02 UTC)