@jaredhowe, I always love your stuff thanks.
One thing I have noticed is that creators want proper compensation, while users want freedom and no fear of recourse taken against them.
No one has yet to talk about Spam in this post, but I feel it very much relates to this issue.
Let's say someone uses content with no new context of information relationship, and no newly created information that could relate. They could simply be brought to ruin by the community on the grounds that they are creating spam(a repeat of already accepted/known information). Insulting the intelligence of the observers and up-voters.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Given that the community is comprised of individuals, doesn't it insult the intelligence of those individuals who don't agree or who would want to read more about a topic to assume that you know what they would or wouldn't want to see? Doesn't it insult their intelligence to make value judgments on their behalf? How could you know which individuals have read which content? How do you account for new members? How do you account for people who have been away for a few days? Isn't insulting the intelligence of others in the name of preventing insults to intelligence a performative contradiction?
I have observed people brought down on this network for "Spam". I think knowing what community or individuals understands or knows, is not a feasible ability. This is the benefit of being able to cite or reference our content as we discover it for others. We should assume that failure to do so may cause some level of anger from them. Like walking into a city of Atheists and telling them you are designing a new religion that rejects the ridiculous notion a God exists. One could assume it would be best to be tactful in our presentation of the ideas we are working on.