Re: [Snowdrift-design] Audio for intro-to-snowdrift video
On 10/19/2016 02:22 PM, mray wrote: > > > On 19.10.2016 22:56, Aaron Wolf wrote: >> On 10/19/2016 01:25 PM, mray wrote: >>> >>> 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. >>> >> >> I think the easiest way to clarify is: they are RIVALS, as in time, >> money, attention are *rivalrous* resources. There is a competition for >> these things and they *can* be in a state where giving them to one >> project removes them from the others even though you're right it's not >> *necessarily* at that point. > > This is my whole point. The exclusiveness you attribute to the choice > isn't realistic. > I wasn't attributing exclusiveness, that wasn't my intent. I was attributing rivalrousness, which is real. Unless you're rich, you have some limit to your budget and everyone has limited attention. Most people cannot afford to pay hundreds of dollars regularly for proprietary software licenses *and* donate hundreds of dollars to FLO software. There's some limit here, some competition. Besides, every dollar that funds another bit of work on some proprietary project helps it win market-share over FLO rivals. So, in the competition for market-share (which is admittedly not always zero-sum if the market itself grows), *depriving* the proprietary project is helpful just as funding the FLO project is. This rivalrousness is the point, and people do face this sort of dilemma in that the cost of engaging with both options is a higher total cost. >> >> Similarly, projects at Snowdrift.coop are in some competition for these >> same rivalrous resources of time, money, attention. As we've discussed >> in the past, there is no *need* for some projects at Snowdrift.coop to >> fail in order for others to succeed, but there *is* a rivalrousness here >> where we *do* accept and even celebrate the way crowdmatching helps >> allocate resources when they do reach the state of being in direct >> competition. >> >> I want to express somewhere (not in the video) that there *is* a dilemma >> of how to allocate these rivalrous resources where the public benefit >> comes from maximizing the support of public goods where individual >> benefit may come from paying tolls and attention to the well-funded club >> goods (but doing so takes rivalrous resources that then leaves less >> potential available for public goods) > > As long as you keep the two dilemmas separate, nice and tidy there is no > issue for me. > I agree, there needs to be absolutely no room for confusion about what "the snowdrift dilemma" is. The other club vs public option dilemma is a related but distinct dilemma. >> >>> 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. >>> >> >> No, you literally cannot drive on two roads at the same time. You can >> use them both at different times, but you cannot drive on two roads at >> once, that is just not possible. > > Exactly. That is the point where I think the roads metaphor falls short > when using it in both dilemmas. > It doesn't fall apart. Like I said with movies: you only watch one movie at a time. You only use one road at a time. It's as appropriate as a metaphor can be, i.e. imperfect. >> >> Although it doesn't map perfectly to every situation, the two roads >> dilemma does highlight the rivalrousness that is real. You do not watch >> two movies at the same time. Or if you do, you have divided attention. >> You have limited attention, and giving it to one movie at a particular >> time means less available for a different movie. I can't imagine anyone >> sincerely disagreeing with that assertion. >> >>> >>> 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. >>> >> >> This is the core issue. I'm pretty convinced that A is better for right >> now and for this video. I'm 100% convinced that A is acceptable in any case. >> >> I still want B to be available, I will describe B somewhere sometime in >> some writing or such. I think B is more compelling in the fundamental >> way that "I fucking hate those sleazy ads!" is compelling. But it is >> divisive. >> >> To use a different metaphor, A is like me saying "there's some nice >> aspects to co-ops, but here's some challenges and ideas
Re: [Snowdrift-design] Audio for intro-to-snowdrift video
On 19.10.2016 22:56, Aaron Wolf wrote: > On 10/19/2016 01:25 PM, mray wrote: >> >> 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. >> > > I think the easiest way to clarify is: they are RIVALS, as in time, > money, attention are *rivalrous* resources. There is a competition for > these things and they *can* be in a state where giving them to one > project removes them from the others even though you're right it's not > *necessarily* at that point. This is my whole point. The exclusiveness you attribute to the choice isn't realistic. > > Similarly, projects at Snowdrift.coop are in some competition for these > same rivalrous resources of time, money, attention. As we've discussed > in the past, there is no *need* for some projects at Snowdrift.coop to > fail in order for others to succeed, but there *is* a rivalrousness here > where we *do* accept and even celebrate the way crowdmatching helps > allocate resources when they do reach the state of being in direct > competition. > > I want to express somewhere (not in the video) that there *is* a dilemma > of how to allocate these rivalrous resources where the public benefit > comes from maximizing the support of public goods where individual > benefit may come from paying tolls and attention to the well-funded club > goods (but doing so takes rivalrous resources that then leaves less > potential available for public goods) As long as you keep the two dilemmas separate, nice and tidy there is no issue for me. > >> >>> >>> 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. >> > > No, you literally cannot drive on two roads at the same time. You can > use them both at different times, but you cannot drive on two roads at > once, that is just not possible. Exactly. That is the point where I think the roads metaphor falls short when using it in both dilemmas. > > Although it doesn't map perfectly to every situation, the two roads > dilemma does highlight the rivalrousness that is real. You do not watch > two movies at the same time. Or if you do, you have divided attention. > You have limited attention, and giving it to one movie at a particular > time means less available for a different movie. I can't imagine anyone > sincerely disagreeing with that assertion. > >>> >> >> 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. >> > > This is the core issue. I'm pretty convinced that A is better for right > now and for this video. I'm 100% convinced that A is acceptable in any case. > > I still want B to be available, I will describe B somewhere sometime in > some writing or such. I think B is more compelling in the fundamental > way that "I fucking hate those sleazy ads!" is compelling. But it is > divisive. > > To use a different metaphor, A is like me saying "there's some nice > aspects to co-ops, but here's some challenges and ideas that co-ops face > (that don't apply to other businesses)". B is like me saying "co-ops are > ethical and just, typical capitalist businesses where an owner dictates > terms to the workers and clients have ethical problems X, Y, Z, and they > shouldn't exist, we should only have co-ops." > > To apply that to a strong example: A: "we built a co-op taxi service > that uses a FLO app to increase efficiency and work in a more reliable > way than traditional taxis!" versus B. "GPS and software organizing taxi > service is superb, but Uber getting an effective monopoly with lock-in > and dictated top-down terms is awful, That's why we built this co-op > version of that sort of service; and we all should work to support this > ethical vision and reject Uber!" > > I see why there are good arguments for going with A, but people *should* > recognize and experience the B argument, and it's a view I happen to hold. > > At any rate, I insist that we accept and welcome B for at least > something to have available in our arsenal and for whenever we get > questions that are best answered by B. It's the stronger way to insist > that what we're doing *really* matters (because club goods are NOT > OKAY). But for the video, we need to stick with A. A is also safer > because it is less divisive (and it's simpler). > > I agree that
