[pcmaffey]

So long as journalists are paid with ad dollars, content will always trend towards the lowest common denominator.

This applies to all media in general; but there really needs to be a better metric for quantifying impact than clicks. If writers, etc. are rewarded for advancing knowledge, then many many more people would be enabled to do so.

Hell, perhaps we don't even need a new metic, and instead just subsidize everyone with UBI. Those who provide long-term value will outweigh those who only consume.

[eggdude]

UBI is exactly what I thought of. Another reason why those who are in control would want to avoid it.

It seems like it will still require a lot of money to publish quality journalism in sources that people actually look at.

[hueving]

>Those who provide long-term value will outweigh those who only consume.

Is there any evidence supporting this?

[pcmaffey]

It's a good question, and really, the crux of the whole issue. I don't have evidence, just belief... The value of incremental knowledge, and of lives lived without scarcity consciousness, when measured across large enough time-scale, could have exponential impact on humanity (snowball effect). Whereas the cost of UBI, while large, is relatively linear.

Hopefully, some of the experiments on UBI can start to provide the evidence.

[hueving]

I suppose what I'm asking is are there are enough resources to allow UBI right now with a major chunk of the labor force (and subsequently tax income) disappearing?

[toomuchtodo]

We're going to find out regardless, with large swaths of retirees leaving the labor force to join Social Security.

[prawn]

UBI plus more open information for the hobbyists to look through.