noooo. it's just that the tools aren't that good... yet. i'm helping to build some tooling for the "middle class"... we're very close. the future is very bright for (meta)creators!
The passion economy is a choice. It is not an equalizer. There is nothing about an ‘economic’ model that brings equality…equality is defined within a ‘social’ model.
On my 3rd day living in NYC in 1992 a rather disturbing-looking man was handing out single-page “newsletters” about all kinds of conspiracies that he saw. His capacity to influence was directly attributable to the amount of access he had to a copier and paper. Let’s say he has 2 reams of paper and was able to pass out 85% of his sheets. He would reach 850 people. Period. The internet-based publishing model may not have been designed to be equitable, but at least it’s searchable by all the major indices, and so one’s potential sphere of influence stretches far beyond the number of people walking by on Bdwy and Wall who are willing to take a sheet.
Yes, platforms these days dictate the modern labour models. Even if we divert from the example of substack. You could have a blog with a newsletter that looks just the same but you are missing the momentum of the platform.
And you are still a "slave" to Google's algorithm and the SEO game.
The article also states: "Excluded are people without social, intellectual, cultural, or creative capital." Of course they are, but that is how our society basically works. You have skills, you can make money.
The passion economy is a trap
noooo. it's just that the tools aren't that good... yet. i'm helping to build some tooling for the "middle class"... we're very close. the future is very bright for (meta)creators!
The passion economy is a choice. It is not an equalizer. There is nothing about an ‘economic’ model that brings equality…equality is defined within a ‘social’ model.
On my 3rd day living in NYC in 1992 a rather disturbing-looking man was handing out single-page “newsletters” about all kinds of conspiracies that he saw. His capacity to influence was directly attributable to the amount of access he had to a copier and paper. Let’s say he has 2 reams of paper and was able to pass out 85% of his sheets. He would reach 850 people. Period. The internet-based publishing model may not have been designed to be equitable, but at least it’s searchable by all the major indices, and so one’s potential sphere of influence stretches far beyond the number of people walking by on Bdwy and Wall who are willing to take a sheet.
Thanks for posting and inviting the commentary.
Not sure if i should agree or disagree.
Yes, platforms these days dictate the modern labour models. Even if we divert from the example of substack. You could have a blog with a newsletter that looks just the same but you are missing the momentum of the platform.
And you are still a "slave" to Google's algorithm and the SEO game.
The article also states: "Excluded are people without social, intellectual, cultural, or creative capital." Of course they are, but that is how our society basically works. You have skills, you can make money.
Am i missing something here?