@unwriter is on PowPing!

PowPing is a place where you can earn Bitcoin simply by socializing, for FREE.
Never tried Bitcoin? It's OK! Just come, socialize, and earn Bitcoin.
Check out unwriter's activities
Total Economy: 0.11 USD
If you are interested in thinking more deeply about what "Free vs. Paid" means, and what it means for Bitcoin, take a listen to this Podcast https://soundcloud.com/techdirt/is-free-bad
mungojelly tipped:
kenshishido tipped:
Yes, the problem is that you don't really know what you are giving in exchange for "free use". Dr. Wright was also saying in one of the videos that in order to complete a transactions both party need to know what they are exchanging for. He also went on to explain if it is not clear, then the transaction/exchange is in fact "invalid." from legal standpoint. Anyway, one of my favorite teacher, Prof. Dan Ariely (Behavioral Economics) explains about the special power of "free". 1. Price of Free makes people irrational behavior. 2. People get overly excited (more dopamin) and they don't see the downside. 3. That's why you see "buy one and get one free", "free shipping". For Powping, it is cool that you are taking advantage of the special power of free for onboarding. https://youtu.be/gOyDLgVrmrg
unwriter tipped:
unwriter replied:
Thank you for sharing. This is a great video.
I think ultimately it's about people having more control over themselves. If you have control you can even choose to "be the product if you aren't paying", voluntarily. The problem is that people have not had control and they have had no choice. They will be able to.
The opening is terrible. Dig up the tech dirt? Kill me. The point about the three body problem was a good observation. The lack of transparency concern is a good one, it seems to me that few people know what they are giving up compared to what they are getting. He had a good point about access for the poor with a free service, again, the point is the transparency of what pays for the service. The tragedy of the Commons and the "Russian hackers" point seems dumb. They put less than $100k into the election, a few Facebook ads didn't do shit. Is there really a national security risk? The discussion really got bogged down in the middle. I didn't see much value there. If you are going to refer a writer, you need to lay out their arguments. "If you waste my time, I want you to really know me" groan. The creepy versus awesome discussion on information discovery is probably the best part. The Netflix based internet discussion left a lot of value on the table. For example, $10 a month per website is unsustainable but micro transactions discussion should have been flushed out more. Re: Does the micro payment discussion change when it is the tenth of a penny versus five? The cap on micro transactions is a good idea. Re: flatter. The blockchain thing at the end was God awful. Value go up!
unwriter tipped:
That was an interesting conversation! It's a total counterpoint to a show I listen to often about the tech industry, Techtonic with Mark Hurst on WFMU. One point that felt crucial to me was about the terms of the exchange not actually being clear-- my strong intuition is that people would be very upset actually by the terms if they understood how much their web activity is being tracked. So I don't think it's fair to portray it as if it's all fine because it's an exchange where both parties benefit, when really the users have such a different feeling about what's happening to them than what really is. You can have sensible relationships with users with the balance of funds flowing either or both ways. People could be paid for content, could pay for access, could pay a fee to give tips to one another, or a zillion other models. It seems to me that the reason we don't see any of those models is that in almost every case the amounts of money that would be fair would be very very small. There's already plenty of awesome free content, so even if a piece of content is worth paying to access it, it's probably not worth paying more than a few cents. People's random content absolutely is worth something, but also it's not mostly very special or necessary so it's not worth very much. With credit card fees putting a floor on what prices are allowed, they're forced to find a way to make it work out to free because they can't charge or pay the prices that would make sense.
unwriter tipped:
@42 min 😂🤔@43 min, Are you forshadowing powping tokens?!
musiq tipped:
benjamin replied:
Topic / dialogue in the podcast actually dovetails with that CG Wikipedia interview the other day where Jimmy Wales complimented the subsidized or subscription model and was dubious if micro-transactions were actually desirable (eg Amazon could just aggregate prime views on a fee basis and bill EOM to tailor bill and limit tx cost even with fiat & Visa.
unwriter tipped:
Matthew 6:26 Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they?
unwriter tipped:
Also, if you do listen to this, please post your thoughts here.