Advertisement
by Allanea » Fri Apr 07, 2017 7:10 pm
by Galloism » Fri Apr 07, 2017 7:58 pm
Xerographica wrote:Admittedly though, because Netflix has so many subscribers, how you spent your own fees would be a drop in the bucket.
But this is even more true when you shop at the grocery store. But, because everybody spends their limited money on the groceries that most closely match their preferences, the supply closely matches everybody's preferences.
Your premise for Netflix is that the supply closely matches everybody's preferences... despite the fact that nobody spends their limited money on the content that most closely matches their preferences.
Xerographica wrote:Making a sacrifice is how we prove and communicate importance. And knowing the importance of things is necessary because society's resources are limited.
by Grave_n_idle » Fri Apr 07, 2017 10:53 pm
Xerographica wrote:I'm arguing that people be given the option to spend their fees on their favorite content. But they'd still be able to watch all the content.
by Jello Biafra » Sat Apr 08, 2017 3:35 am
Xerographica wrote:Jello Biafra wrote:What if my value of a particular piece of content is $11?
Well... what I'm advocating is essentially crowdfunded advertising. The more valuable some content is, the more people who would watch it. With this in mind I'm sure that plenty of people would be more than happy to pay more than their fair share in order to help promote their favorite content.
Take take this forum for example. The threads are sorted chronologically. Of course it's useful to be able to see which threads have the latest replies. But it would be incredibly useful to be able to also see which threads are the most valuable.
Let's say that we all paid $1/month but we could choose which threads we spent our money on. There would be one page on this forum where you could see all the most valuable threads. You could filter the list to see the most valuable threads that had been created in the past week, month, year or all time.
People are going to want to read the most valuable threads. With this in mind, if there's a thread that you would want more people to read, then you'd clearly have an incentive to spend more than your fair share on that thread. The more money that was spent on that thread, the higher it would be on the list, and the more people who would read it.
We'd prioritize how we spent our limited money in order to help each other prioritize how we spent our limited time.
by Central Asian Republics » Sat Apr 08, 2017 3:40 am
Xerographica wrote:If people's Netflix ratings are untrustworthy, then what does that say about democracy? How confident should we be that Trump accurately reflects the true will of the people?
by Chestaan » Sat Apr 08, 2017 7:17 am
by Chestaan » Sat Apr 08, 2017 7:21 am
Jello Biafra wrote:Xerographica wrote:Well... what I'm advocating is essentially crowdfunded advertising. The more valuable some content is, the more people who would watch it. With this in mind I'm sure that plenty of people would be more than happy to pay more than their fair share in order to help promote their favorite content.
Take take this forum for example. The threads are sorted chronologically. Of course it's useful to be able to see which threads have the latest replies. But it would be incredibly useful to be able to also see which threads are the most valuable.
Let's say that we all paid $1/month but we could choose which threads we spent our money on. There would be one page on this forum where you could see all the most valuable threads. You could filter the list to see the most valuable threads that had been created in the past week, month, year or all time.
People are going to want to read the most valuable threads. With this in mind, if there's a thread that you would want more people to read, then you'd clearly have an incentive to spend more than your fair share on that thread. The more money that was spent on that thread, the higher it would be on the list, and the more people who would read it.
We'd prioritize how we spent our limited money in order to help each other prioritize how we spent our limited time.
So your ideal is a market system where everyone has the same amount of money?
by Xerographica » Sat Apr 08, 2017 8:00 am
Galloism wrote:Xerographica wrote:Admittedly though, because Netflix has so many subscribers, how you spent your own fees would be a drop in the bucket.
Indeed, which is why the amount of sacrifice involved is a number so small it would round down to zero on most calculators, and is therefore functionally equivalent to zero.
But TIME sacrificed does not, and time = money.
Consider three ways of allocating votes.
You get more votes the longer you are willing to sit in a chair in a room for hours on end with nothing but nothing to do.
You get more votes the longer you are willing to do the downward-facing dog.
You get more votes the more you pay.
These are all potential methods of measuring intensity of preference. In some ways they are all better than the system we have got, because they all attempt to measure intensity at all, whereas one person-one vote does not. That said, they are all obviously flawed. The first will skew voting to people who don’t have jobs or things they really need to do that keep them from sitting in a boring room doing nothing. The second will skew voting to yoga practitioners. The third will skew voting to rich people. - John Holbo, Selling Votes
Galloism wrote:If I buy 5 oranges for five dollars, or don't buy five oranges for five dollars, does it affect my personal supply of oranges? Does it affect my personal supply of money?
If I "allocate" 5 dollars to Agents of Shield on Netflix, does it affect my personal supply of Agents of Shield? Does it affect my personal supply of money?
Galloism wrote:My premise is that by sacrificing your time to watch something 4 times, you are communicating more clearly than by sacrificing roughly nothing "allocating money" to it.
Galloism wrote:Some guy told me that sacrifice is the only way to tell true value. Here's what he said:Xerographica wrote:Making a sacrifice is how we prove and communicate importance. And knowing the importance of things is necessary because society's resources are limited.
Is he wrong or are you wrong?
Forsher wrote:You, I and everyone we know, knows Xero's threads are about one thing and one thing only.
by Xerographica » Sat Apr 08, 2017 8:33 am
Jello Biafra wrote:Xerographica wrote:Well... what I'm advocating is essentially crowdfunded advertising. The more valuable some content is, the more people who would watch it. With this in mind I'm sure that plenty of people would be more than happy to pay more than their fair share in order to help promote their favorite content.
Take take this forum for example. The threads are sorted chronologically. Of course it's useful to be able to see which threads have the latest replies. But it would be incredibly useful to be able to also see which threads are the most valuable.
Let's say that we all paid $1/month but we could choose which threads we spent our money on. There would be one page on this forum where you could see all the most valuable threads. You could filter the list to see the most valuable threads that had been created in the past week, month, year or all time.
People are going to want to read the most valuable threads. With this in mind, if there's a thread that you would want more people to read, then you'd clearly have an incentive to spend more than your fair share on that thread. The more money that was spent on that thread, the higher it would be on the list, and the more people who would read it.
We'd prioritize how we spent our limited money in order to help each other prioritize how we spent our limited time.
So your ideal is a market system where everyone has the same amount of money?
Forsher wrote:You, I and everyone we know, knows Xero's threads are about one thing and one thing only.
by Galloism » Sat Apr 08, 2017 10:35 am
Xerographica wrote:Galloism wrote:
Indeed, which is why the amount of sacrifice involved is a number so small it would round down to zero on most calculators, and is therefore functionally equivalent to zero.
But TIME sacrificed does not, and time = money.Consider three ways of allocating votes.
You get more votes the longer you are willing to sit in a chair in a room for hours on end with nothing but nothing to do.
You get more votes the longer you are willing to do the downward-facing dog.
You get more votes the more you pay.
These are all potential methods of measuring intensity of preference. In some ways they are all better than the system we have got, because they all attempt to measure intensity at all, whereas one person-one vote does not. That said, they are all obviously flawed. The first will skew voting to people who don’t have jobs or things they really need to do that keep them from sitting in a boring room doing nothing. The second will skew voting to yoga practitioners. The third will skew voting to rich people. - John Holbo, Selling Votes
Sure, buying 5 oranges for $5 dollars would be somewhat different than spending N5 dollars on Agents of Shield.
Oranges are a private good but Agents of Shield, in this context, is a public good.
But in both cases you're signaling the value of two things that match your preferences. In both cases you're informing producers about the intensity of your specific preferences.
Right now you believe that it's necessary to inform producers about the intensity of your preferences...
but that this info is accurately and effectively transmitted by your viewing/consumption habits.
Again, just because you spend so much time consuming this thread really doesn't accurately inform me about the intensity of your preference for it.
I know exactly how many words you allocate to this thread but in no way, shape or form does that inform me about how much you value this thread.
If we don't know the value of threads, then how can we expect more valuable ones to be consistently and regularly created? In the absence of the knowledge of thread values, there really won't be a virtuous cycle of value creation.
If you watch something 4 times, but don't allocate any fees to it, then I'm going to guess that maybe it's something that does a really good job of putting you to sleep.
If you reply to this thread 100 times, but don't allocate any fees to it, then I'm going to guess that you value other threads more highly.
Spending your fees has an opportunity cost.
You have to throw other things under the bus. So you better endeavor to throw the least valuable things under the bus.
It's certainly the case that replying to you also requires that I throw other things under the bus. And I better hope that I'm throwing the least valuable things under the bus. But spending 5 hours on this thread isn't the same thing as spending $5 dollars... or $10 dollars... or $100 dollars on this thread. Time is money but $1 dollar doesn't necessarily equal 1 minute or 10 minutes.
I really don't want Netflix interpreting my viewing habits to determine how to allocate my fees. I don't want Netflix to do any interpretation of my behavior. Netflix doesn't know me. Netflix isn't sitting next time me when I'm watching a show. Netflix can't see how bored or interested or excited I am when I'm watching something. Netflix can't hear how loud I'm laughing or sobbing. Netflix can't see when I fall asleep. Netflix isn't my bff or gf. I mean, not yet at least. Maybe in the future Netflix can be some super cool robot that will hang out with me and know me better than I know myself. It will know when I want something clarified. It will know when I want popcorn. It will know when I want my feet rubbed. It will know when I want to cuddle. It will know when I want to dance.
[/quote]You want Netflix interpreting your behavior? Yeah? Fine. Allocating your fees would be entirely optional.
by Allanea » Sat Apr 08, 2017 1:02 pm
And the rest was just more nonsense, other than the inexplicable praise of patreon, which is approximately the most inefficient thing ever. People often fund vaporware on patreon, over and over, and get nothing delivered.
by Galloism » Sat Apr 08, 2017 1:12 pm
Allanea wrote:And the rest was just more nonsense, other than the inexplicable praise of patreon, which is approximately the most inefficient thing ever. People often fund vaporware on patreon, over and over, and get nothing delivered.
How does it compare to other crowdfunding sites?
by Xerographica » Sat Apr 08, 2017 1:29 pm
Chestaan wrote:If you wanted content to be valued at it's "correct" market value then you would have to charge for each individual episode/movie watched. The thing about this more traditional type of market is that it FORCES us to decide if we value it more or less than its price. With Netflix, I will pay the subscription if the utility derived from everything I can watch in the month is worth more than the price of the subscription.
Chestaan wrote:Now if we could allocate our subscription to various shows, what is my incentive to ensure I allocate it correctly? For example, I might value one show at $3 and another at $7. But what's to stop me allocating all my money to the show I value at more? Because, and here's the critical thing, by allocating the $10 to one show, I don't lose it. I can still get access to both shows, but I might simply decide that I will give all my money to my favorite show despite the fact that I have positive valuations for other shows.
Chestaan wrote:A traditional market has a mechanism inbuilt to ensure that consumers are forced to value a product correctly. Your allocation of funds model doesn't.
Forsher wrote:You, I and everyone we know, knows Xero's threads are about one thing and one thing only.
by Xerographica » Sat Apr 08, 2017 1:47 pm
Galloism wrote:Probably not, really. Without sacrifice, which your system for netflix completely lacks, there's little motivation for people to make choices, as they don't actually HAVE to make choices, and so what you get will likely be junk data.
Forsher wrote:You, I and everyone we know, knows Xero's threads are about one thing and one thing only.
by Galloism » Sat Apr 08, 2017 2:02 pm
Xerographica wrote:Galloism wrote:Probably not, really. Without sacrifice, which your system for netflix completely lacks, there's little motivation for people to make choices, as they don't actually HAVE to make choices, and so what you get will likely be junk data.
I really enjoyed the Korean comedy "The Sound of Your Heart" on Netflix. Jo Seok is the creator. If I donated $5 dollars to him... would you consider this to be a sacrifice?
by Allanea » Sat Apr 08, 2017 2:41 pm
A traditional market has a mechanism inbuilt to ensure that consumers are forced to value a product correctly. Your allocation of funds model doesn't.
by The Two Jerseys » Sat Apr 08, 2017 3:51 pm
Allanea wrote:A traditional market has a mechanism inbuilt to ensure that consumers are forced to value a product correctly. Your allocation of funds model doesn't.
What does 'value a product correctly' mean?
by Xerographica » Sat Apr 08, 2017 5:51 pm
Galloism wrote:Xerographica wrote:I really enjoyed the Korean comedy "The Sound of Your Heart" on Netflix. Jo Seok is the creator. If I donated $5 dollars to him... would you consider this to be a sacrifice?
If you couldn't use the $5 for any personal good, and could only allocate that $5 to other films which you could also consume whether or not you paid the $5?
No.
Forsher wrote:You, I and everyone we know, knows Xero's threads are about one thing and one thing only.
by Galloism » Sat Apr 08, 2017 5:56 pm
by Xerographica » Sat Apr 08, 2017 6:06 pm
Galloism wrote:Xerographica wrote:Is paying taxes a sacrifice?
Paying taxes, yes. That means less money in your pocket to use whatever you want for yourself.
Allocating those taxes between programs when you can't use them for anything besides other government programs? No, not appreciably anyway.
Again: any "personal sacrifice" those allocations would involve would be less than a rounding error.
Forsher wrote:You, I and everyone we know, knows Xero's threads are about one thing and one thing only.
by Galloism » Sat Apr 08, 2017 7:32 pm
Xerographica wrote:Galloism wrote:Paying taxes, yes. That means less money in your pocket to use whatever you want for yourself.
Allocating those taxes between programs when you can't use them for anything besides other government programs? No, not appreciably anyway.
Again: any "personal sacrifice" those allocations would involve would be less than a rounding error.
So it's a sacrifice when you pay for a bundle but it's not a sacrifice when you pay for a specific item in the bundle?
by The Two Jerseys » Sat Apr 08, 2017 8:07 pm
by Xerographica » Sat Apr 08, 2017 9:35 pm
Galloism wrote:Xerographica wrote:So it's a sacrifice when you pay for a bundle but it's not a sacrifice when you pay for a specific item in the bundle?
It's not a sacrifice to "allocate" a bundle amount among items in that bundle if you have to pay the bundle amount regardless, and get the full bundle regardless.
Thought experiment:
You buy my tax services, but you get to allocate whether I spend the money on getting a hitch for my Tesla or buy more video games. You won't get to drive nor ride in or even see the Tesla nor use it to tow anything, nor will you get to play any of my video games. Is it a sacrifice to choose one or the other? What was the sacrifice? How were you personally negatively or positively affected by your choice?
Forsher wrote:You, I and everyone we know, knows Xero's threads are about one thing and one thing only.
by Galloism » Sat Apr 08, 2017 10:20 pm
Xerographica wrote:Galloism wrote:It's not a sacrifice to "allocate" a bundle amount among items in that bundle if you have to pay the bundle amount regardless, and get the full bundle regardless.
Thought experiment:
You buy my tax services, but you get to allocate whether I spend the money on getting a hitch for my Tesla or buy more video games. You won't get to drive nor ride in or even see the Tesla nor use it to tow anything, nor will you get to play any of my video games. Is it a sacrifice to choose one or the other? What was the sacrifice? How were you personally negatively or positively affected by your choice?
It's not the equivalent because there's no middleman.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Hidrandia, Philjia, Quincy, Spirit of Hope
Advertisement