Hacker News Reader

Comment by EricMausler | Hacker News Reader

Have you considered paying for the patreon regardless because you consume his content one way or another and value it?

I consume hundreds or thousands of creators' content that I value more than this particular channel. If I felt the duty to donate to each one, let alone subscribe, I would consume much less of it and live in a smaller world.

Perhaps it is a rationalization, but I don't feel that consuming content that someone offers to me for free creates an obligation on my part, whether I love it or not.

And don't they make money from ads or subscriptions via YouTube or whatever platform they're on? I don't want to bother paying each creator, but I'm fine subscribing to YouTube or Pandora.

interesting. you can't afford to compensate all of the creators whose content you consume, so none of them shall receive compensation?

there is no obligation, it's just a good and kind thing to do.

I'm looking for the implication of the above that "none of them shall receive compensation" from me and not finding it.

fair, I did not assume positive intent

I agree that you are not obligated to pay, as in you don't deserve to have debt for consuming things you value. I think it may be a rationalization to argue that you shouldn't try to. Although maybe there is a difference of opinion on separating an obligation from an ought to.

Justifying why it's okay to feel entitled to the content for free (due to lots of available free content) even though it provides a personal value to you is what oversteps in the wrong direction to me, if that's part of your take.

I should probably clarify that merely grabbing or holding your attention is not what I mean by providing value. I mean it saves you time, it gives you conversation topics, it helps you grow, its something you look forward to consuming, it isnt just taking attention you didnt know what to do with, etc. In kther words, there's something specific to the content that resonates with you.

Its possible you just don't value this content all that much, even if you do appreciate it and find it interesting - which is okay.

Value is very subjective and personal, there's no way to codify what I'm saying here.

And it's also fair to argue that you are paying for most of these things with your time and attention, although with your specific example an improvement was theorized that would give you the same value while saving you time, and that translated to paying the creator less. Something about the specifics there didn't seem right

I think ideally the creator would be compensated by PrintThatVideo, who is taking their content and repurposing it.

I mean, I expect someone to make this a module for something than can be ran on your own computer with LLAMA (or whatever) in pretty short order.

The attention market cycle is wrapping up and at this rate AI/LLMs will further kill the market for grabbing your attention by filtering that crap out. Grab the signal, filter the noise.

Yuval Noah Harari is likely correct, the future isn't about attention, it's about intimacy.

> The attention market cycle is wrapping up and at this rate AI/LLMs will further kill the market for grabbing your attention by filtering that crap out. Grab the signal, filter the noise.

That's not my impression at all, but I suppose we'll see which force prevails - user filtering out noise with AI, vs. producers generating much greater volume of low-quality noise with AI tools, and some of them also using AI tools to make some types of noise harder to discern.

Is that a counterargument? It doesn’t seem like one. Why does it matter where and how the content is repurposed? If there is value found and extracted and the person that created that value isn’t compensated then we have a problem. No more incentives to create value.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com