On 19.10.2016 00:56, Aaron Wolf wrote:
> Okay, the reply below is the unedited reply for now. I hope it's clear
> enough. I haven't had time to write the clear new thread I want to get
> to soon.
>> That seems like an effective concise way to refer to the snowdrift. I
>> think it also needs to point out the problem of whether the work will
>> get done at all, though. Also, a problem I see with saying "Other public
>> goods include music, software..." is that in our current world these
>> things are typically /not /public goods because of how they're
>> licensed.  I'm wondering if, for the sake of clarity, albeit at the
>> expense of simplicity, we should specify "free and open music,
>> software..." or something like that?  For example:
> Yes, that exact concern is the heart of the whole presentation challenge.
> Put simply (this is largely what I intend(ed) to post separate thread on):
> Club goods are a tragedy. The messaging is easiest if we ignore club
> goods and specify that we're only focused on public goods. But if we do
> mention club goods (which may actually be the most compelling and
> important thing to get people concerned about), do we say "within
> non-rivalrous goods, there's club goods and public goods, and the
> snowdrift dilemma only applies to public goods" OR do we say
> "non-rivalrous goods are *naturally* public goods and so face the
> snowdrift dilemma, and because of the dilemma we get stuck with the
> tragedy of mainly club goods"?
> Effectively:
> A. within broad scope of works to fund at all, we show how we're
> narrowed down to public goods (*FLO* music and software) and *that*
> scope brings up snowdrift dilemma, plain and simple. Elsewhere, we can
> describe why it *matters* to support public goods over club goods.
> or
> B. treat club goods as non-existent in terms of natural states of
> resources, assume all non-rivalrous stuff faces snowdrift dilemma and
> describe the negatives of club goods as an abortion from the failure to
> solve the snowdrift dilemma (which, though simplistic, has basis in
> reality).
> B is what I had been doing. It gets stronger at the assertion that club
> goods are themselves a tragic problem. I also want to assert that all
> support of club goods undermines the promotion of public goods and thus
> we have a second type of dilemma: Use your limited resources to pay
> tolls or donate to public goods, and there's a logical matrix for that
> dilemma.
> In that approach with B, I'm saying that, indeed the dilemma users at
> Snowdrift.coop face isn't just to donate or not to FLO public goods,
> it's whether to reject proprietary stuff so as to not help it keep
> out-competing the FLO public goods.
> I think the legitimate part of Robert's complaints is that B means
> presenting two related dilemmas instead of a single clear snowdrift dilemma.
> The reason I prefer B is because it gives no inherent legitimacy to club
> goods at all. If we do A and just acknowledge that club goods and public
> goods are the two categories of non-rivalrous goods and that the
> snowdrift dilemma and snowdrift.coop are just about the public goods…
> well, that's simple and clear but implies that club goods are a
> legitimate category that inherently exists.
> Practically speaking, many people will respond in ways we want to the
> assertion that all club goods *should* become public goods, the club
> goods category deserves no legitimacy. But there are certainly lots of
> people who currently believe without question that both categories are
> legitimate and don't think the decision to celebrate and support public
> goods needs to go along with any rejection of club goods. Those latter
> people we want first and foremost to be patrons still, even though I'd
> like to convince them to change their views on club goods.
> In arguments Robert and I had, we identified two views we do agree
> about: I assert that support for club goods (e.g. for proprietary
> software) undermines the goal of public (FLO) goods. The fact of
> competition for attention and resources and the network effects from
> people sharing and utilizing the same resources means that there is a
> choice between supporting and using proprietary stuff versus supporting
> and using FLO stuff. Robert insisted that no such choice exists. Anyone
> can use and support both, there's no inherent conflict. He didn't at all
> accept my assertion that time, money, attention are limited resources
> and giving them to proprietary stuff reduces the available amount for
> potential FLO support.

You are partially misrepresenting my point here.
I agree that time, money, attention are limited resources.
I reject that they have to be spend either one *OR* the other way:

One can pay for Photoshop but also donate to Gimp. An increased Adobe
market share is bad for GIMP but a better funded GIMP poses a bigger
threat to Adobes dominance. It cuts both ways DESPITE mutual influence.
You can go both ways at the same time.

> In the end, I still want to and *will* spread the message that club
> goods are a tragedy, the toll-road choice itself means someone doesn't
> freeride on the public road but *is* avoiding the public road and still
> not helping. You cannot drive on both roads at once (or have one road be
> in both states at once).

You can drive on both roads at once. See above.

> I want to have people consider this perspective while still
> understanding that "the snowdrift dilemma" at its core is just about the
> public goods and doesn't directly talk about what happens when we fail.
> I.e. "because we fail to solve the snowdrift dilemma, we end up with
> toll roads" not because toll-roads are part of the original dilemma,
> just that they are a real-world market-driven result of a world that
> fails to solve the snowdrift dilemma.
> But, I'm okay with taking the angle A from above where we just say there
> are these classes of resources, and we're focused on public goods where
> the snowdrift dilemma takes place. And we then can just later as an
> aside have messages saying how the club goods really are a tragedy and
> ought not exist and ought to all *become* public goods, if only we can
> fund them still. This approach A does have some advantages, and I'm open
> to being convinced it's the way to go.

I think A. is much better.
1. It is simple short and easy.
2. We convince with what is good about us, not by what is bad about others.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Design mailing list

Reply via email to