Nelson's Weblog: culture / apis-for-content-sites-must-be-free
readhacker.news
  • GrandChicken@sopuli.xyz
    1·
    2 years ago

    I figure its fair to charge for access if you pay the moderators and the contributors.

    Seems like they are taking over the moderator roles now, by force. Maybe the mods will also be the main contributors soon?

  • remi_pan@sh.itjust.works
    1·
    2 years ago

    Like the author of this paper said, for me it’s not really about third party apps. The problem is that reddit try to monetize a content that is our collective property.

    • Rentlar@beehaw.org
      1·
      2 years ago

      Yeah, pretty much this. When I post anything on social media I intend to speak publicly to anyone who wishes to listen. I’m not speaking to Reddit, Lemmy, whoever in confidence, so no matter what the ToS says, my intent is any advice or anecdote I give is anyone’s to view and use, not in the content host’s sole ownership.

    • nude@kbin.social
      1·
      2 years ago

      Is it our property though?

      Intellectually speaking yes, but legally speaking? Probably not. Chances are if its stored on their servers, it belongs to them.

      • ___hulk@kbin.social
        1·
        2 years ago

        Legally, currently, yeah. Needs to change though. I’m ok with monetizing the presentation and delivery but if you want to use collective property you should still have to make that available as part of the deal.

        • Parallax@kbin.social
          2·
          2 years ago

          Replacing “comment” with “artwork” kind of helps illustrate it. If we all made tons of artwork for Reddit, then they started gating it behind a paywall and while painters and all the behind-the-scenes painting staff earned nothing – well that’s kinda where we are today.

          • EnglishMobster@kbin.social
            1·
            2 years ago

            But what you mentioned absolutely happens, though.

            It’s €17 to go to the Louvre. Many of the paintings there are public domain, which logically says they should be free as they have no owners. Yet to see them, most people need to pay €17.

            Those are paintings locked behind a paywall. The pieces may be donated freely by an artist - just as users contribute freely on a website - but the museum still charges for admission.

            So while I’m not defending the practice - and there are many free museums; even the Louvre has ways to get in for free - it’s also not exactly a way to convince others that the practice is inherently bad.