On 10/15/2016 04:04 AM, mray wrote:
> On 15.10.2016 04:35, Aaron Wolf wrote:
>> With a road blocked by a snowdrift, everyone wants it cleared, but
>> nobody wants to do it all themselves. Of course, nothing gets done if
>> each of us waits for others to do the work.
>> That's an example of the PUBLIC GOODS PROBLEM where we fail to cooperate
>> enough to support resources that benefit everyone.
> Not convinced of that last sentence. The public goods problem exist, but
> so do public goods. Clearly this does not match the snowdrift problem
> you refere to in the sentence before. It covers the road and does not
> allow passage *at all*. We *do* have public goods of the kind we want to
> support, though. To make the snowdrift analogy work there needs to be a
> problem that stands for the pile of snow: an _unsolved_ problem.

I can tweak those words, but we have to assert that there *do* exist
un-shoveled piles of snow, effectively. We have to say that the problem
remains unsolved. The truth, that the original text covered, is that
there are two solutions already: taxes and toll-roads, and so
acknowledging that while rejecting those as inadequate or incomplete
solutions is necessary for complete clarity.

If we accept brevity, then it's just beyond the video to say "sure, it's
solved in some cases, but this dilemma describes the challenge and why
it *often* goes unsolved".

Let me clarify: the statement I am making is that the problem describes
why it is hard to get people to cooperate and implies that it MAY and
DOES happen that *often* we do fail to get there. I'm not trying to
imply that it *always* happens that way. The Snowdrift Dilemma and
Public Goods Problem in general does not say that cooperation is
impossible, it just explains why we OFTEN fail.

> I think the unsolved problem is to organize financial project support in
> *direct relation* to the scope of public relevance. – Which is where we
> can often spot a shocking discrepancy: Relevance != $upport
> Our goal is to leverage exactly and only at this point.

Yes, the nuanced truth is that it's a continuum from no support to full
potential, and we rarely are at either extreme. But that's too nuanced
for the video, unless we take the time to express this further (like
talking of some people who love shoveling snow).

> We need to somehow say that being a public good that benefits everyone
> isn't good enough for us. Sweeping demand of a project isn't just
> desired, to some degree it is the only thing we truly care about.
> Because everything else can stick with the status quo and have the same
> results as what we can offer them in our system (few demand = few
> donations).

This video is simply not going to cover the issue that Snowdrift.coop is
best fit to the projects that have on-going needs and reach more than a
very small niche audience. Those things will have to live elsewhere or
be in later videos or pages or whatever. This is the video describing
the core concept, not getting into nuances about which projects are the
best-fit for our solution.

>> Public goods can also be things like music, software, movies, news,
>> research…  We'd all love to get these things for free with no
>> limitations. But then how could we fund their development in the first
>> place?
> I think at this point we need to add this caveat:
>  "... But then how could we fund their development in the first place?
> And expect really professional quality and dedication"

That's implied well-enough. If people think, "musicians and movie-makers
can just get by on super tiny budgets", we're already dealing with a
different sort of conversation. Most people don't actually think that a
movie we'd care about or journalism we want can manage with tiny
budgets. As far as we're concerned, the things we'd all wish to freely
share are quality things, not shitty ones.

>> At Snowdrift.coop, we've created a new crowdmatching system to fund
>> these types of projects while keeping them as free and open public goods.
> I like that.
>> When supporting projects here, you don't risk volunteering alone, and
>> there's no hyped-up, all-or-nothing, one-time campaigns. You just make a
>> pledge that says, "l'll chip in a little more for each person who joins
>> me!" And because we calculate our crowdmatching donations monthly, our
>> system combines mutual assurance with sustainable funding and
>> accountability.
> I think "hyped-up" is a really alien accusation that smells of prejudice
> towards our best known "competitor". Lets not start mudslinging ;)

Is there a different wording we can use to express the issue? "Costly"
maybe or "risky"? I like "hyped-up" here, although I'll admit that
there's the argument that the forcing of people to do promotion can be a
good thing.

>> Working together, we can clear the path to a free and open future for
>> everyone!
> All inn all this sounds good to me. If I would (but I don't want to) add
> anything it would be to mention our Limit handling to take away fear of
> explosion once people grasp that in fact we let them "steal money out of
> each others pockets" ;)

I agree that the budget thing is important, but that's where the moment
people watch the video we need to tell them that the very next step is
to read the how-it-works page where we emphasize budget limits.

> If at any time you re-record this try to speak a *little bit* slower
> than your first take. The images can't keep up with hasty speech.

Slower, got it, okay.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Design mailing list

Reply via email to