[squigz]

> The current global attention allocation system is biased towards the biggest attentions craving characters on the planet And those who can buy the most ads.

Would it not be more accurate to say it's misallocation of attention, rather than a scarcity? That is, even if we had more attention to give, we should avoid dedicating as much as we do to those who can buy the most ads

A small, fairly pedantic difference, I suppose.

[qp11]

It is scarce in the sense Attention doesn't grow. As in there is an upper limit to how many things you can pay attention too, and how much free time you have to pay attention. But Info is growing all the time. Which also means the number of things you can't pay attention too is growing.

The UN report on the Attention Economy quotes a study that says 0.5% of content generated is consumed by people. And that number was from 2015 and keeps falling.

As networks grow, more connections happen, and as tools of content generation/distribution/broadcast gets cheaper or free, Info keeps exploding. But Attention available does not grow.

So this creates a problem for 2 groups - those who want the Attention of others (eg corporations/politicians/influencors etc) and those who are having a hard time working out what info to pay attention too.

The global attention allocation system is designed for the first cause they are willing to pay to capture finite available global attention.

The second group is mostly left to fend for themselves against extremely sophisticated systems designed to capture, buy and sell their attention or sometimes even steal it.