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.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Design mailing list Design@lists.snowdrift.coop https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/design
