[technothrasher]

My similar happy childhood moment was when my home page made the Netscape "Rants and Raves" page for my extensive tribute to Lindsey Wagner (the actress who played the Bionic Woman), and that leading to my local newspaper interviewing me for an article on what the heck this "World Wide Web" was. I went on and on about how the web was revolutionary as an equalizer, allowing anybody to publish and actually be heard without the old barriers to entry. Sounded good, but the web hasn't exactly fully lived up to my vision.

[Terretta]

Pamphleteering has a storied tradition. Self-publishing remains accessible today.

What confuses me are the reflexive "why would I publish if I'm not getting the ad revenue" and "why would anyone take their time w/o getting paid" type remarks.

Same comments about music: nobody will record songs without getting paid. And games: what's even the point in playing a shooter without dropping loot?

The last one encapsulates the whole problem well.

Over on /r/division2 a majority of players are baffled by a one month only "Realism" mode (all March, worth trying!) that turns off loot boxes and loot drops from tangos. You can solo or co-op the Division 2 Warlords of New York expansion, set in Manhattan, receiving a couple additional base weapons and weapon mods each mission completed. It's refreshing to enjoy beating scenarios while liberated from opening every scrap pile on the street then sorting through inventory for hours.

Gamers on reddit seem universally convinced the gameplay loop for a tactical PvE shooter should be about getting the next loot, rather than executing a mission cleanly or enjoying a strategically cooperative evening with friends defeating a zip code and its boss.

"I won't play a game that's not rewarding." "I won't write a song that doesn't make me a millionaire." "I won't capture my thoughts on a subject unless I get $0.003 an eyeball."

Somewhere we lost just enjoying the play.

[kalavan]

Sounds like classic crowding-out of intrinsic motivation.

There's a story, I can't find the page at the moment, of someone who was getting pranked all the time (his house TPed or egged or something). So he offered the miscreants $1 to do it tomorrow. He kept on doing it like this, and then a few days later, he offered a quarter. By the time he had got down to a dime, they said "there's no way we're going to do it for such a measly sum" and left.

Better sourced examples also exist: fewer citizens supported a decision to build a nuclear waste repository in Switzerland enjoyed more support if they would be offered compensation: https://www.bsfrey.ch/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/crowding-ef... p. 96 (sixth page of the PDF).

[101008]

> What confuses me are the reflexive "why would I publish if I'm not getting the ad revenue" and "why would anyone take their time w/o getting paid" type remarks.

I published free content during the 90s and early 2000s in the internet, so I lived through that moment when you write something just for the pleasure of it. What I think it changed is that back at the time, it was you and your keyboard and that was your gun. The best content (that is, the best idea+writing) won. People would share in forums, MSN, emails, with friends, etc. It was more democratic in the sense that we were all equal.

Today that doesn't work anymore. You can write a very good piece but no one will discover it because the behaviour has changed. You probably will have to invest in ads, or being someone already known in the topic, etc. And I am talking before AI, with all the AI noise/slop/content, it's impossible today. So if I am going to fight against big media who are also writing shitting content about the same topics, or Instagram influencers who are posting silly memes, and I need to invest money, may as well try to earn something back.

PS: I may write an article about it.