[extropy-chat] finding old (and new) sf

[Damien Broderick]

At 07:46 AM 7/3/2005 -0400, Robin wrote:

>Everything depends on the quality of the "measurements describing
>qualities of the information."  Or rather, what we really want are
>indicators of the *value* of the information to the people who use it.
>Whatever the problems with the current system, it does ensure that
>info which users perceive to have a high value is produced and used.
>An alternative could be worse if it failed often enough to induce
>the production and use of this class of info.

This discussion has skidded weirdly away from my original suggestion, which 
was precisely to make available to potential users an experience (reading 
the text) that they could evaluate *after use*and then pay for, if they 
felt that its value was sufficient.

This is not altogether unprecedented. If you go to a restaurant (rather 
than a McEatery) and order a meal, they bring it to you, you eat and drink 
it, and only after that do you pay them. If the food and drink was 
repulsive, you might decide not to pay, although this would be regarded as 
bad form.

The difference with downloadable material is that competition in the form 
of unedited and free (or edited and textjacked) downloads is abundant. When 
your daily reading experience is largely comprised of blogs, 
advertisement-subsidised newspaper or journal downloads, etc, you start to 
feel resentful if somebody has the gall to ask you to pay for your 
entertainment.

In particular, you're likely to resist the urge to pay for something you 
have already used. To me, this is a sign of moral enfeeblement in our 
community, but hey -- if that's the way people are, there is no point 
trying to make a living by flying in the face of it.

In any event, the point of my proposal was that the reader gets to assess 
the value of what has just been consumed, and pay what the reader regards 
as a fair price for it. Weird, huh?

Damien Broderick