The voluntariness with which people distribute their content on the major platforms is based on the fact that uploading is free and on the hope of being discovered.
This hope is encouraged and sold by the platforms who monetize it, knowing that it is they who direct discovery.
What attracts the most people is pushed.
A rush to the middle of average that incentives average content to be produced because it sells.
Therefore it is the preferences of the users as well as those of the distributors or providers of the platforms.
The preference of the user indeed, supply and demand. Demand that 0.1% of the world owns everything, that is what will be supplied.
The other attitude is somewhat more critical. It asks: if I were to receive a guaranteed payment for the production of content - i.e. data - would everything in the future not be geared towards pure consumption? Would I just blow pure nonsense on the Internet, just to produce content?
You could try, but this is a supply and demand world, so if no one demands the nonsense that you produce, there will be no return. I don't know where you get the idea of guaranteed return on content from.
In any case, one could say that your demand that everyone owns his data and has a copyright on it, so that at the same time a right of determination should hold, to profit financially from it.
Owning data doesn't mean profiting from it.
I am not sure how you see this as a passive process.
How can you be certain about that?
I have some other impressions. The channels I watch are maybe only for niche audiences but it looks as if those people meet the taste of many others, which can be interpreted by the comment section. If youtube pushes here or there some users: why bother? You think they shouldn't?
there is obviously the most money to be made. When it's too mediocre, I can just switch to someone or something which holds more quality for me personally. People with different tastes and contents are still there in plenty, aren't they?
If 95% of the people buy their products and messages from the 1% of the rich, then those who see themselves as a minority can still do something different. The masses, like the rich, thrive on innovation, ideas, the charm of those who do not fit into the picture, who at first glance have strange views, or who otherwise appear different or convincing. You can choose to be mainstream or occupy a niche. But you can't have it all: belong to the 1%, adapt to the masses, feel accepted and comfortable and at the same time do or represent something special or unique.
Also ... it maybe so. It may be different in the future. Who can predict that? Working against the mainstream always is kind of difficult but worth the time. But you won't find many mentors or supporters because it's not mainstream. Once it becomes mainstream it had changed and will do so further on. I don't know whether cryptocurrency will be a game changer or be incorporated in what is accepted right now. It's still uncertain where the development will lead it.
It was a mental game. I got it, as I said, from UBI (unconditional basic income), I thought it's a known term but am wrong, as I see now.
The passive income also was part of this.
I am confused because on the on hand you seem to be okay and not seeing yourself in disadvantage or being a slave to the big ones but on the other hand you appear complaining about the so called one percent?
Algorithms. They can do what they want but what they are doing is maximizing their own choices while programming the masses as to what is popular. You might like that idea, I do not.
You can have nothing unless you own something.
UBI has nothing to do with content creation at all. It is an income provided for doing nothing. What people do with that income could change things slightly as a stop-gap, but most people will use it to consume from who already own everything and, the cycle of disenfranchisement continues.
The one percent exist because the 99% have chosen not to own their experience but rather rent from middlemen in a constant debt cycle. You might be okay with that, I am not.
Depends if I see an algorithm to my disadvantage, being manipulated or if I see it as a private assistant which supports my preferences. I do not see myself as a puppy which walks on autopilot through the world. I rather do not see my fellow men in this way, either. When I have the chance, I ask of their potentials and motives to feel well or encouraged.
You're saying the average modern citizen doesn't own anything worthy?
I beg to differ. Depends on how you value your possessions and life experiences. You can be a full time youtuber, earn while the opportunity lasts and then, if it's over, move on. In the meantime, bred is on the table. If one doesn't want to play by their terms, it's up to the person to choose another form of income generating. For sure people own their talents, their experiences and reputation. That's worth a lot, if you ask me. So, ownership is given, it only is a point of view, how much value I give it personally. In this way, I may negotiate and act into the world of business or job market.
I do not care so much with what most people will or won't do with UBI. I care more about what I would do. It's so far an unusual idea and one, I had many inspirations with.
Actually, the minorities often live from the majorities and their (our) average lifestyles. It is their sheer mass that makes it possible for a few to stand out from the crowd and do something unusual. When I know that I am not one of them, I am encouraged to support those who seem to me to bring something not yet existing or disturbing into the world. If people weren't curious, there wouldn't be crypto currency or a platform like Steemit. At first it's like a big experimental laboratory where hopes and dreams awaken, often burst and impatience and disappointment take place. But like you said, you can also wait and see what happens. And support it according to your own possibilities.
If the two of us talk, it's for me of more importance not to talk about the 99 % but give you my personal perspective. May others take advantage of it :)
Ask Facebook and Youtube about how their AIs and algos sort the content in your feed.
Their reputation? Not at all, reputation is an externally applied metric.
THe problem is, that you live in a world of other people and while you can do what you want with the resources you have, that will still be affected and affect the resources of others.
Your view of the world seems ultimately naive and poorly thought out.
And, You seem to think that your view of it all is something that should be propagated, which is fine, but from a position that is not well derived, it wouldn't move us very far along and likely supports the status quo, the average.
What's so bad about being average? I repeat that you still seem to be in a position to choose something not average, and so am I. The average though, is something which keeps many things alive we take for granted.
I don't see it as a problem that I live in a world of other people, just a matter of fact. And that many things are to my dislikes as much as to my likes. I still can pick, can't I? I am part of the masses.
In case I meet a difficulty, I can act appropriate to the situation. In the meantime, I like to stay without too many sorrows and not put on those of others. Not good for health. It was different when I was younger, though. Everything has it's time. Once in a while the critic in me stands up and fights for something. But not only am I affected by the others, I do affect the others, too.
How could you know that my position is not derived or well thought through, a result of experience and weighing things up?
I see it that the status quo is in constant change. Maybe not immediate, maybe some changes do not happen during my lifetime or urgent desires. But that doesn't mean it's not in progress. Fortunately there are enough people who take on different activities and push things or hold them back. Who am I to see through it all?
Right, reputation is something different and not fully owned by us, only a result of our professions, relationships and activities.
To some degree, depending on what you are doing. Nudge might be a good book to read, also Thinking fast and slow concerning defaults and habits.
I only have the comments you have added here.
Right, reputation is something different and not fully owned by us, only a result of our professions, relationships and activities.
not a result - an externally applied impression. As someone said:
“Reputation is what strangers think of you and character is what your friends know you are”
Nah ... you have the chance to browse my blog. To get a taste of whom you might deal with.
Well, I would say that with the sovereignty to define reputation, the last word is not spoken. In my language at least - we also say reputation in German - it is not clearly defined. That is why I say that reputation is not just something that others have attached to us, but influenced by our own actions/omissions. If I expose another person in front of a group, then this has an influence on my reputation, my image among observers. In the case of a gang of thugs, this can lead to a strengthening of my position, in a company that pursues social goals, it can mean a drastic drop in my reputation.
Other than that, I like the quote.
You like a book recommendation from me, too? LOL :-D
You did not say what you find bad about being average. ... okay, I leave it.
Greetings to the US and thanks for the talk.
edit: actually I leave you with the question what it's good about being average. To stay positive. I am not insisting of an answer.