A very late response. I was away, and I hate web-based email, and google
hates my preferred email client...
Below, my thoughts... I know rather long and rambley...
On 2023-08-08 11:59, Dianne Skoll wrote:
WARNING: This post will contain NSFW language. Do not read further
if that bothers you. :)
Warning - I'm quoting Dianne's "NSFW language"
On Tue, 8 Aug 2023 02:17:05 -0400
Michael Goguen<michael [ dot ] goguen [ at ] gmail [ dot ] com> wrote:
[...]
2/ could opt in to pay a small fee for 'enhanced' library news
access, whereby people can select to some extent where they prefer
some of that fee to go, which media outlets, and maybe track usage,
maybe especially to help out smaller media with some consistent
income...
Here's the problem. Google and Facebook and other tech giants have
conditioned us to receive content "for free" by hiding the *actual* costs,
namely: Loss of privacy, massive data collection, and scorched-earth policies
to destroy businesses that used to charge for content. You can't compete
with "free".
If you wrestle pigs, you will get dirty, and the pig will enjoy it.
If the solution is charitably donate to news sources you like, then the
outcome will be that the narrative of the richest will prevail.
It doesn't address the underlying "theft-for-resale" problem. It just
adds to the content, increasing the pickings for the content skimmers.
The only way to compete is to play by different rules.
If aggregators were banned, or if they decide to take their balls away,
because we don't want to play their rules, people would still find their
news. Us older types managed to, even before the internet existed. If
people find that offensive and threatening to their way of life, they
can get a VPN and connect via their preferred jurisdiction.
Personally I use bookmarks to sites I trust - including sites I trust to
be less moral and more deceitful, because it is always important to
understand the narrative others might be consuming.
So now that they've gone and destroyed journalism,
They haven't destroyed journalism. Journalism is a profession and
attitude that will never be destroyed. Some even survive autocracies,
and win Nobel prizes. And I hope they can outlive their autocracies.
At its best, journalism is a science. Like science, you have good and
bad journalists. Like science, journalism needs financing. And like
science, if financed for commercial benefit only, then results risk
being skewed.
I wonder whether "journalist" should be more than a self applied label.
Like "doctor", "dentist", or "car driver". Anyone can set up as an
"entertainer", but to call yourself a "journalist" you should comply to
ethical standards. So, a journalist who behaves unethically could loose
their license. It is beyond my "rant grade" to know how that might work.
Facebook and Google
can do whatever they want. They have truly fucked us over.
That's the free market, and free markets need regulation to function for
the approximate benefit of most of us. I agree it is a problem. But,
probably easier and cheaper to fix than climate change.
Most scientific research is funded by government grants and non-profit
charities, for the benefit of all. Can journalism be partially funded,
and regulated for quality, integrity, and variety? That way, we wouldn't
need to rely on spoilt billionaires handing out ratings and rankings.
We regulate the essentials of our society. Banks, military, courts,
transportation. As irritating and flawed as those regulations can be,
they are essential.
"It is my cultural right to drive on the left hand side of the road"
probably wouldn't help me out if I get stopped by the police, and most
of you are happy about that!
Journalism is generally more political than science, but banks aren't,
with politicians seemingly wishing to influence the Bank of Canada for
political benefit. The concept and importance of regulating something
political is well understood, necessary, and long established.
If some of the funding for journalism comes from earnings of companies
not creating content, but earning money from content, then I'd be fine
with that too.
Don't think it will end there. AI will mean virtually the end of jobs
for actors, writers, animators and other creative jobs. We always assumed
automation would eliminate dull and repetitive jobs, but actually it's
coming for creative jobs.
Current concept of AI can rehash form, not semantics. An effective
orator with a clueless script writer.
It seems to me that the de-facto effect of AI is to obfuscate theft. You
cannot reverse engineer where they got their data from, so you cannot
demand payment.
What AI doesn't do, in it's current incarnation, is grow. It isn't
modelling the human mind. It doesn't understand the human condition. It
is modelling presentation.
If writers and actors stop writing and acting, then there won't be new
input. The wealth of data currently available will be static, so AI
products will just be a mush of what placates the financially
exploitable brain. Watching media will be as innovative as recanting a
Latin mass every Sunday.
Humans create. It is what we enjoy doing.
The hardest jobs to automate, ironically, are
the low-end ones like garment work, cooking, etc.
In the 1980s robot manufacturing was the big next thing, then China
offered a cheaper way, so for decades we've been postponing the low-end
manufacturing robot revolution. It is still coming. The current labour
shortage is only going to be an incentive for robots to replace humans
without spooking workers, until it is too late.
Greed has enshittified the Internet and allowed tech giants to become more
powerful than nation-states.
Nation states still have a major advantage. They can create laws, if
voters don't object too much, and if our elected representatives have
enough imagination. I know, rather significant "if"s.
I hope that Facebook's attempt to thump disobedient Canada fails. I
believe states that protect the creativity of their society will
flourish, those that don't will stagnate.
Without breaking up tech giants and severely
regulating their actions, we're all royally fucked.
I agree that regulation is essential, but breaking up doesn't matter so
much. When was the last time you worried much about IBM?
As you bring up royalty - regulation worked with the British monarchy
too. It took a while. Over 600 years from Magna Carta to Queen Victoria,
and 700 years from 16 barons to universal suffrage.
I'm very pessimistic about the future and really glad I'm an older person
no longer working in tech, and not a young person starting out. :(
We are our grandparents! The 1970s is a very long time ago. In fact,
more shockingly, the 1990s is a very long time ago!
The current generation will find different solutions. We had to use
creativity when books were not immediately to hand. The current
generation doesn't even need to remember why a "bookshelf" is called a
"bookshelf".
Let's start with "one email server per home", and whittle away from
there... That's related to me not being able to access my long term
gmail account from my preferred email client, but I've already rambled
enough in this email..
Tug
Well, have a nice day, everyone. :)
Regards,
Dianne.
To unsubscribe send a blank message tolinux+unsubscribe [ at ] linux-ottawa [ dot ] org
To get help send a blank message tolinux+help [ at ] linux-ottawa [ dot ] org
To visit the archives:https://lists.linux-ottawa.org
To unsubscribe send a blank message to linux+unsubscribe [ at ] linux-ottawa [ dot ] org
To get help send a blank message to linux+help [ at ] linux-ottawa [ dot ] org
To visit the archives: https://lists.linux-ottawa.org