[Thiez]

I don't think your definition of inequality, which basically equals popularity, is a useful one. The article is about income inequality. While it is true that people always making the unpopular choice would reduce winner-takes-all effects, it's not worth it: it requires great personal sacrifice, and as an individual there is almost no gain: society is hardly going to benefit when you intentionally hamstring yourself by running TempleOS, or when you choose to eat at a bad restaurant instead of a good one.

Surely creating laws that try to limit income inequality makes much more sense, especially when looking at cost/benefit?

[sol_remmy]

> I don't think your definition of inequality, which basically equals popularity, is a useful one. The article is about income inequality.

My definition is perfect. High popularity -> high income -> inequality. If you bandwagon onto a popular author like J.K. Rowling, then you are further enriching her and causing inequality.

If you want to legislate away inequality for say, Twitch streamers, then pass a law that no Twitch streamer can have more than 500 views. Or authors who have sold >100,000 books can no longer sell books.

[ihm]

It doesn't have to be the case that high popularity -> high income. That's how we structure it in our society currently but there's no reason it has to be that way.

We could still have popular things, and even reward their creators with a lot of money, but less than we currently do.

[jpadkins]

how?