1bwana1
Offline
Upload & Sell: On
|
 Re: Alan Schaller’s new photo sharing site | |
johnvanr wrote:
1bwana1 wrote:
johnvanr wrote:
panos.v wrote:
1bwana1 wrote:
wolfloid wrote:
You're missing the point of the argument. I'm talking about making a platform viable. Advertisers want mainstream addictive content. I can confidently state that there is no way this new app will make enough in reoccurring income to stay afloat for anything but a short time. I don't wish it. I'm a stills only shooter. But I don't see it working.
I don’t think I’m missing the point of anything. If you just cave in to mainstream market practices and ‘wisdom’, like you seem to be doing mentally with your ‘certainty’, you just perpetuate a sort of craven attitude which suggests that the way things have survived so far is the only model for success. I am glad that some people see beyond the ‘inevitability’ of marketing market forces and income dependent on advertising. It is surely the US way, and it has gained a clear ascendancy, but at the same time it is a pretty despicable model - supporting the dystopian direction the US seems to be going in at the moment, that much of the rest of the world is sceptical and concerned about.
I am glad that Schaller has the optimism to believe that there is another way, that might be able to survive and defend itself from the predatory US market forces. Who knows how? I have no idea how far he or his colleagues have thought this through - extensively or not at all - it is an unknown - prescription, involvement from Leica, patrons, I don’t know. But we need other ways of community and communication than the current crass, greedy and fatuous advertising-dominated big-money models that often produce at best a frustrating and mediocre experience, and that often rely on turning people into passive, consuming morons.
Maybe we should have government run Free Website programs where everyone is registered automatically, and it is funded by a progressive tax system. Likes, views, and followers, can be equitably distributed among all members so we can have equal outcomes regardless of the quality of images. Everyone who can't afford a good camera and lens would be provided a kit by the government. Of course resolution and dynamic range would be regulated and taxed progressively to pay for the free kits. In order to conserve resources, and mitigate global warming, there would be an offsetting tax anytime an image is printed. Charged of course by the type of paper, inkset used, and size. Of course, this tax money would be used to buy carbon credits.
This would all be regulated by a new commision located in very expensive office buildings in Brussels/Luxembourg, where it would be staffed by highly paid Government employees with full lifetime job protections, and benefits, driving expensive Mercedes cars, eating at high end restaurants, and attending countless meetings around the globe. All of course paid for with money received from taxes on completely unrelated activities. One of the primary focuses of the regulating authority would be to curate the images for truth, and offending content.
Unfortunately this organization will never achieve financial sustainability. This will be blamed on the unfair competition from other sites located in corrupt hotbeds of capitalism and meritocracy such as Silicone Valley where evil Venture Capitalists fund and invest the creation of sites and services in the hopes achieving profits and wealth, while not paying fair taxes in order to redistribute outcomes. Diabolical I say.
Talk about "dystopia"...
The dystopia that is Earth today is that you have one hand those trying to ascertain what the one and true truth is and on the other those that have no truth and everything is subjective.
A truth though is that just because the Meta model works and makes them lots of money, you could argue that the Mafia model also works and makes them money. So should we all be mafiosi gunning down people, selling drugs and pimping women?
I understand that absolute free-tradists say "well if you don't like Meta go somewhere else" but tell that to the kids that get brain rot, are becoming unable to talk in more than 4 words of which 2 are "bruh", have the attention span of 4 seconds and so on.
Basically Meta wants the Matrix equivalent where humans are not batteries (like the movie) but simply chickens that get the advertisers' chicken-feed, just so Meta can get its delivery fees of feed-to-livestock.
Yes, that model works, in a society that values the profits of a corporation above the well being of its citizens. Maybe there is an alternative though. They say capitalism and democracy is the least worst system, well maybe they are both reaching their limits now. Is there an alternative? Who knows? Is there a problem dreaming about it and trying something different?
You seem to be confusing the capitalism, meritocracy and wealth that the US was built on with the current state of affairs that still depend on that wealth. Silicon Valley nowadays is an in-breeding cesspit of nepotism and arrogance. Somehow the same "geniuses" get recycled from one VC and startup to another giving us ever more rope to hang ourselves. People failing upwards with more and more money for "them" vs less money for everyone else that stood in their way. Or perhaps you want the meritocracy of politics where the president's son's ex-girflriend gets an ambassadorial post, some best-pal sycophant tv presenter gets a department to run and so on. Not that politics isn't an in-bred cesspit too elsewhere but let's not kid ourselves.
What really annoys me is when people on either side of the far left/right say that the only choice is rampant capitalism vs totalitarian communism. Erm, no? There's a whole spectrum of numbers between -100 and +100. Here's a thought: capitalism only works if you have growth. The capitalism the neo-cons and populists want is an unregulated, market takes care of it all. That means you get unchecked, unregulated growth. In every other situation unchecked growth has a word for it: cancer. In industries like water, you will literally get cancer while they get all the profits for serving you cancer-inducing water. But yeah sure, if you don't like this water get it from someone else while we enjoy our monopoly in you area. Or maybe buy bottled water, forever. It comes out of our own factory too! Ka-ching.
The irony is that Silicon Valley honchos send their kids to tech-free private schools.
No irony in that. It only shows that these people have a very clear vision of how and when their innovations should be used. It is not them that is the problem it is the misuse of their creative contribution.
Not a new concept or problem either. Consider the Nobel Prize for an analog example.
So, they know that using their technology is bad for children, yet they design them to lure children in and keep them there. It’s the Camel cigarette all over again. It only proves that unbridled capitalism brings out the worst in everyone and needs common sense guard rails.
No, they know that their technology can be used improperly or well. It is misuse that is the problem. Even the tobacco industry is similar. It is a technology that can be used to make products that when misused is harmful, or products that are hugely beneficial. Notably in pharmaceuticals. Once again personal choices and market driven. We should only blame ourselves when bad choices lead to bad results.
|
