• 0 Posts
  • 17 Comments
Joined 1 年前
cake
Cake day: 2023年10月30日

help-circle


  • What about the online food ordering market. I reckon that might be an easier first step than consumer products. Here in the Netherlands JustEatTakeaway has a market share of around 90% and requires restaurants to give them a 14% provision. Restaurants don’t have much of a choice, if they’re not on there they miss out on a huge part of the market, it’s like they don’t exist. Why don’t restaurants unite and develop a FOSS protocol that let’s them federate, so the consumer has a central place to browse the food delivery market, but simultaneously makes the providers independant because they can run their own instance if they please. Have these types of ideas been pitched to branche organizations? Restaurants have a clear interest to develop this to free themselves from the platforms with a monopolistic venture-capital-driven strategy.










  • But ads are not functioning, they are destructive. They are by no means cheap either, people are paying through being manipulated and we are paying collectively for the damage it’s doing to our world. We’d be much better of if we had only direct payments. Direct artist payments will always be the more effective and efficient financing structure because then we pay just for the creative output, not all the unrelated economic parasitic activities.

    The solution is very simple and there is nothing that inflation can do about it: we don’t watch ads, we pay creators that we want to support, and if from these donations a creator doesn’t earn enough money he has two options: 1. One has an intrinsic drive to create and publish so he does so through other means, for instance by working a part time job. If this sounds unreasonable then let us not forget that already most of all human creativity is financed exactly like this, it is only the exception that is financially lucrative. 2. One chooses not to create (or in a less costly manner). You could think of this as a sad outcome, but you’d be better off concluding that this creative output wasn’t so important to anyone, not to the creator nor to the public. This means we’d be left with the better and more intrinsically motivated creative content.

    So let’s not justify ads, but let’s reject them in the most radical ways we can.


  • Ads exist because people want to make money. So these bad actors go out and look for places where people like to spend their time, and they poison these places with their money-hungry practices. In the process they destroy the innocence of all these manifestations of human creativity, and manipulate people into buying shit they don’t actually need, effectively destroying the planet through overconsumption. That’s not even mentioning that ad-companies put us on a path towards a mass-surveillance society, just because big-data leads to more effective ads. I can’t help but see ads as a destructive force of evil in our world. I like human creativity in it’s many forms, and I’m all in favor of rewarding creators to a certain extent, but using ads seems to be the worst possible method of doing so.

    (not intending to criticize your comments, just spreading the anti-ad gospel ;-)



  • e$tGyr#J2pqM8v@feddit.nltoFuck AI@lemmy.worldFuck up a book for me please
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    9 个月前

    Reading can make people smarter. Reading dumbed-down shit probably won’t have the same effect. This apps prevents people from expanding their vocabulary.

    On a side note. I think we should never force children to read old stuff, we should convince them that it’s actually worth while. Forcing it on people will just make them reject books even more. There are so many things to read, let them read something that has their interest, something that has a direct benefit to them if they want. If you care about cars, read about cars. It should be about helping kids discover that reading is fun and rewarding.