
I got invited to write for the Huffington Post today - alexfarran
http://heterocephalusgabler.wordpress.com/2014/04/25/im-in-a-right-huff/
======
spindritf
_the class of people who own the world and control all the assets may finally
begin to see the error of their ways_

Their ways? Arianna Huffington didn't cause the current epidemic of narcissism
making people willing to write for free to stroke their ego as he aptly noted.
She also didn't inherit HuffPo so all that talk about socialism and
inheritance tax is just more signalling on the author's part. Which is why
they chose him.

 _If some street hustler challenges you to a game of three card monte you don
't need to bother to play, just hand him the money, not because you're going
to lose but because you owe him for the insight: he selected you._[1]

He owes them an article on cancer, I believe.

[1]
[http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2013/05/dove.html](http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2013/05/dove.html)

~~~
jseliger
_the current epidemic of narcissism making people willing to write for free to
stroke their ego as he aptly noted_

To be fair, some people write for free to learn things, share things, and
spread knowledge. That's why I started a blog. And virtually all professors,
who produce work for journals, don't get paid directly via their writing, but
rather via their home institution, and sometimes other means (like grants).

Universities are different than the HuffPo, but the point is still important.

~~~
cobrausn
I think the real point there is that the professors still get paid.

------
salimmadjd
Good for the writer. I have written for Hufpo once before and soon I realized
how their model works:

1 - get free content from the writers.

2 - get free marketing and traffic from the writers (who tell their friends
and follower about their article they've just posted on the Hufpo)

Most of the articles you write are all hidden in some sub-pages that no one
but your friends or google seo would ever find.

edit: formatting.

~~~
rayiner
This is the basic model of a lot of similar companies. Get people to provide
content for free, then profit from control over the repository. If it weren't
for copyright protections, HuffPo and its ilk would just copy your blog posts
verbatim and call it a day. They're one step up from the sites that auto-
generate product reviews or display reformatted Wikipedia articles.

~~~
untog
_If it weren 't for copyright protections, HuffPo and its ilk would just copy
your blog posts verbatim and call it a day._

They pretty much do anyway. Anything saying "CNN has reported..." is basically
just a rewrite of the existing CNN article, to just enough of an extent that
they avoid copyright issues. Do slightly better SEO (easy because
huffingtonpost.com is more popular than cnn.com) and you get all the clicks.
The organisation that spent money on the original reporting gets nothing. Yay.

~~~
fuzzywalrus
I've been kicking around the idea of a plugin for FF or Chrome to root the
source out of a few popular reblog sites (HuffPuff, Upworthy etc) as they
usually link it.

Rarely do the reblog sites add much other than op-ed commentary to original
news item and it'd save me time when someone sends me a link to a news item to
root out the source.

------
exelius
I agree with the writer's points that HuffPo seems like a pretty bad deal for
the writer; but honestly how different is that from HN? Ignoring the fact that
HN makes no money; the product they offer is obviously desirable or people
would stop visiting. Therefore, it is worth something.

A large portion of the top content on HN comes from peoples' personal blogs.
While these blogs often run ads, I seriously doubt those ads provide much
income beyond covering the hosting bills. So people are obviously willing to
write for free.

HuffPo realized there was a market opportunity in connecting people who were
writing for free anyway with an audience for their content. I guess my biggest
problem with their business model is that the offer _seems_ like a freelance
writing gig and could obviously dupe someone who doesn't ask the right
questions.

So in the end I don't really have a problem with their business model, but
their approach to sourcing content seems a bit disingenuous. If they were more
up-front about the lack of payment, I would have less of a problem with this.

~~~
jarrett
What are Huffington Post's intellectual property terms? That could be a big
distinction between Huffington Post and HN.

On HN, nobody signs over any IP, nor does the copyright holder necessarily
grant a license of any sort. (If you doubt that, consider the fact that I can
submit _anyone 's_ URL to HN. So submitters aren't assumed to have any
authority over the IP.)

With periodicals, though, there usually _is_ a contract with writers where
rights are assigned to the publisher. Maybe the copyright, maybe just a
license. There's usually something along those lines.

So the difference between HN and such periodicals (which may or may not
include HuffPo) is the difference between merely sharing a link and signing
over IP rights.

~~~
jebus989
With HuffPo, you retain ownership of your work and are free to publish it
anywhere else.

~~~
jarrett
Good to know. In that case, probably the biggest distinction between HuffPo
and HN is that HuffPo displays the content on their own site. For some
writers, that might be a plus. For others, it might be a minus.

I've heard some professional writers say you should rarely or ever publish
anything (e.g. a blog post) without remuneration. Not because it's wrong to do
so, but because they consider it bad business. If they're right, I don't know
if that should affect our judgment of a publisher who actively solicits unpaid
submissions. Maybe the writers are undervaluing themselves, but then maybe the
publisher isn't to blame for that.

------
jebus989
The same guy contacted me and I've submitted a couple of pieces since. He was
very upfront and clear about what was being offered, i.e. submit the things
you're writing anyway to us, and subject to editorial discretion they may be
featured on some hugely-trafficked section, else just archived on "the blog".

For doing this they offer you a small profile with various links: to your
amazon books, your website, twitter, an RSS feed as well as the "exposure" and
(ever decreasing in value) bragging rights of writing (well, blogging) for the
Huffington Post. You give them doctored versions of the blog posts you're
writing anyway with a slight risk of hurting your own SEO.

I think everyone is privy to their business model but IMO it's win-win unless
you're in a position where others are already keen to pay for your work.

~~~
cliveowen
If you look from the right angle everything it's win-win, the point is how
much one win is worth compared to the other. Your boss tells you he would
totally give you money if you do some boring chores he doesn't want to do,
it's win-win. But if he gives you $1000 and then proceeds to make 10 times
that with the product of your work, then it's actually a WIN-win for him.

~~~
jebus989
I don't think this is a strong argument, how is everything win-win? What if I
get hit by a car on the way home, is that win-win?Likewise getting fair
compensation for a task, do boring/hard chores get money, isn't win-win it's
zero-sum.

Re: the last sentence, welcome to capitalism where we don't typically evenly
share out the earnings from anything.

------
gambiting
Not related,but I would like to mention this regardless:

>>No party will suggest the rational solutions: if hard work makes us rich,
let’s tax inheritance at 85%, so the children of rich men have to work hard
too. But no: that would never do

I never understood this argument. I am not rich by any means,but why would my
children have to pay 85% on things that I want to leave them?? It's idiotic -
I worked hard to earn those things,why would the government want 85% of their
value?? On what basis and logical reason? To make my children "less lazy" by
doing so?? They can mind their own children - I will mind mine.

~~~
gnaritas
> but why would my children have to pay 85% on things that I want to leave
> them?? It's idiotic.

No, it's not idiotic. It's income to them they receive without working, it
should be taxed higher because those who work for their money should not be
taxed higher than those who simply have it given to them.

> I worked hard to earn those things,why would the government want 85% of
> their value??

Yes, and that's yours, not your children's. The only person you can give large
sums of money to tax free is your spouse; to everyone else, that's new income
and it should be taxed, and large sums should be taxed heavily because
inherited wealth is anathema to democracy.

You can't have a functioning democracy and allow capital accumulation to the
elite in such large sums that their children become kings with the power to
buy politicians and affect law without having the benefit of having worked for
that money and really understanding what it means to not be wealthy.

> On what basis and logical reason? To make my children "less lazy" by doing
> so??

No, to stop them from destroying society.

> They can mind their own children - I will mind mine.

You live in a community and it's not all about you and yours; try not thinking
about yourself so much and look at the bigger picture. Inherited wealth is bad
for society, earned wealth is good for society. You earned your money, keep
it; your children should earn their own on their own.

~~~
gambiting
>>It's income to them they receive without working, it should be taxed higher
because those who work for their money should not be taxed higher than those
who simply have it given to them.

This literally does not make any sense. I paid tax on all those things. My
children are using the benefits of my work, that is correct - but I paid my
duties for the money I made.

>> without having the benefit of having worked for that money and really
understanding what it means to not be wealthy.

So why don't we send everyone for a mandatory work in orphanages or homeless
shelters for a couple months,if its about teaching people a lesson? Since when
is it the governments job to make people " understand what it means to not be
wealthy."?

>>inherited wealth is anathema to democracy.

So why don't we ban it altogether? Once you hit 18 years of age, you are given
a government-built apartament, $1000 pocket money, and off you go, enjoy
democracy. Meanwhile, if you die, all your possessions can go to the
government who will make sure that your wealth is redistributed to the
greatest benefit of the society. Sounds like the right kind of democracy to
me.

~~~
ForHackernews
Wow, talk about black-and-white thinking.

Consider: There may be other alternatives that fall between the extremes of
"My kids get all the free money I can give them!" and "The government should
confiscate all possessions and give everyone a state-sponsored apartment."

~~~
gambiting
Yes, for me it's either no inheritance tax, or 100% inheritance tax. Anything
in between doesn't make sense as it it completely arbitrary. Why 10%? Or 60%?
Or 85%? If you support the notion that children should work for themselves,
then don't let them inherit anything from their parents - in which case, the
government has to provide at least a place to live in. If you don't support
the notion of taxing inheritance(like I do) then you should support the idea
of inheritance tax being 0. Again - no tax is being evaded here. A person who
made that money/bought those things already paid the tax on them. The
government got their share in this already.

~~~
gnaritas
> Yes, for me it's either no inheritance tax, or 100% inheritance tax.

Then you need to mature your point of view because the world isn't so absurdly
simple and black and white.

No thinking person can look at this country (U.S.) today and say accumulated
wealth isn't causing a whole host of problems. The wealth inequality in this
country is bad and needs to be addressed. The rich are out of control.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Yeah but taxes aren't why. Its the rigged financial markets that have swiftly
vacuumed up all the money and put it into the hands of those that - guess what
- handle money.

~~~
gnaritas
There is no one why, there's a host of things that allow wealth accumulation
and they all need to be tackled, but inherited wealth produces dangerous
people: aristocrats who have no idea what it means to work and no appreciation
for those that do, and that cannot be ignored.

And without all that wealth accumulation, the financial markets wouldn't be
rigged. They were rigged by the wealthy buying politicians to get the laws
they like passed. The markets are a symptom of the problem, they aren't the
problem itself; accumulated wealth is the problem.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
But the fix is to undo the damage to the markets. At bottom humans are always
the problem; but that's not actionable.

~~~
gnaritas
Nope, that's just treating a symptom; they'd just immediately break the market
again and that's putting aside the point that they own your politicians and
simply wouldn't allow you to fix it. Until you deal with severe wealth
accumulation, nothing else matters and yes it is actionable. The French lopped
off a few heads, it worked.

------
mrottenkolber
I can not stress this enough: NEVER work for free. Don't do unpaid
internships. Also try to avoid selling yourself under value (hint: you are
probably worth at least twice you could imagine). Ever had someone accept your
demanded rate without negotiating? You know you must ask for more next time.

Besides owing it to yourself, working for less than your right wage will harm
your industry.

~~~
autokad
im just kidding, but if they are working for 0 and you said they are worth
twice as much as they imagine (0), aren't they still worth 0? :P

reminds me of al bundy, no phone calls today, but tomorrow twice as many!

------
sixQuarks
I can understand the frustration of the author, however, HuffPo is not a
government or social entity. It IS part of the free market. I am a huge
proponent of the free market, however, that does not mean the free market will
be perfect. In the short term, there are fits and starts and cycles that
everything goes through, but it is only through the free market that we will
progress over the long-term.

Writers are unfortunately caught up in one of these free-market tornadoes, and
to survive, they need to transform.

The author, instead of looking at this as "writing for free", should look at
this as an opportunity to create his personal platform. HuffPo is paying him
by giving access to their audience. It is up to him to take advantage of that.
Yes, it's not easy, but it's reality.

~~~
untog
But what is the actual benefit of the HuffPo platform? I don't think anyone
sees "HuffPo Contributor" as a byline and considers the author to somehow be a
legitimate writer. Nor does HuffPo give any percentage of ad revenue.

The best possible scenario is that readers get used to seeing your name on the
Huffington Post, so they return for your future posts. Great. You don't get
paid for them either.

Can you point out even one success from this platform? Someone who started out
on HuffPo and has become successful?

~~~
jebus989
I don't think that's how the world works, you don't go from "I blogged at the
Huffington Post" to President, but maybe it gets you a paid journalism gig, or
a book deal, or it just fractionally helps the pagerank of your own site.
Maybe it just looks slightly more interesting on a résumé than your wordpress
blog. What do you expect to get out of writing about your interests in your
free time?

Anecdotal example: I'm essentially a nobody but was approached by a literary
agent after a HP blog post.

------
smnrchrds
_I then researched how long people typically last writing for the Daily Show
(about 6 weeks)_

This seems awfully short. Can anyone shed some light on why this is the case?

------
mcguire
" _The wealthiest families in the UK are those of the Earl of Cadogan and the
Duke of Westminster, both of which inherited ownership of prime London real
estate. They have done nothing to develop that real estate, nothing to earn
it, and their ownership benefits absolutely nobody except for themselves. In
fact, their total control pushes housing costs so high that the entire nation
has become indebted to pay excessive mortgage costs, simply to protect their
ownership of land that is, in national and global terms, economically
dormant._ "

This is completely true, apparently. I was just listening to an _Economist_
podcast episode on real estate in London. Existing housing property cannot be
redeveloped for higher density because the existing long-term leases do not
come up for renewal at the same time and must be renewable. On the other hand,
the freeholder (the one actually owning the property) is in theory responsible
for infrastructure but is apparently free from that responsibility in
practice.

London sounds worse than San Francisco.

------
gdewilde
Great blog, very enlightening write up.

for as far as I could figure out...

If a for-profit business seeks to employ you without financial compensation
they are breaking the law. If you offer your services below minimum wage you
are breaking the law. If the worker's services are an integral part of the
employer's business the worker is an employee of that company. If the role
isn't an essential functions of the company you could be a contractor.

Either way you must pay wages.

Or can the text on pages like these be stretched to say exactly the opposite
of what it says?

us:
[http://www.dol.gov/elaws/esa/flsa/docs/volunteers.asp](http://www.dol.gov/elaws/esa/flsa/docs/volunteers.asp)

    
    
      Under the FLSA, employees may not volunteer services to for-profit private sector employers.
    

uk: [https://www.gov.uk/employment-rights-for-
interns](https://www.gov.uk/employment-rights-for-interns)

    
    
      Employers can’t avoid paying the National Minimum Wage if it’s due by:
        saying or stating that it doesn’t apply
        making a written agreement saying someone isn’t a worker or that they’re a volunteer
    

The netherlands:
[http://www.belastingtips.nl/zakelijk/aftrekbare_kosten/vergo...](http://www.belastingtips.nl/zakelijk/aftrekbare_kosten/vergoeding_voor_vrijwilliger/)

    
    
      Vrijwilliger verricht werkzaamheden voor een organisatie zonder winstoogmerk.
      De organisatie mag geen (bedrijf) B.V. of N.V. zijn, tenzij sportvereniging.
      De vrijwilliger verricht het werk niet als zijn beroep. 
    

translation: Must be a no-profit, must not be the same work as your paid job.
You may help relatives for free as long as you are not getting social support.

I'm curious now, how does Hufington Post (New York) do it?

------
josh_fyi
I write free articles only for marketing, and only on sites that will give me
traffic that makes it worth my time.

This means that such sites will get only thinky veiled marketing.

------
Grae
Scalzi's thoughts on the matter [1] are a classic entry into this genre and
make for an enjoyable read.

[1] [http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/12/09/a-note-to-you-
should-y...](http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/12/09/a-note-to-you-should-you-
be-thinking-of-asking-me-to-write-for-you-for-free/)

------
sparkzilla
I wouldn't pay him either. I got bored after the second paragraph.

Before you downvote: I have hired hundreds of writers in my time, and am
currently paying out hundreds of dollars/day to content creators at
[http://newslines.org/newslines-rewards/](http://newslines.org/newslines-
rewards/)

~~~
jessaustin
For the curious:

 _We pay $1 for each approved post. Each post is 50-100 words, has to follow
our simple style guide, and must to link to an original news article._

------
markbnj
I sympathize and share the author's dislike of this particular business model,
however, I am fairly certain the Huffpo staffer addressed didn't read past the
first paragraph.

~~~
thinkt4nk
On what do you base your fair certainty?

~~~
markbnj
The fact the reply to an offer by an editor started with three or four
paragraphs of political ideology.

~~~
thinkt4nk
...the assumption being that the editor has an aversion toward political
ideology?

------
hartator
Did you ask money to prove a point or just to stroke more your ego?

~~~
eloisant
How about to put some food on the table?

------
petercoolz
By the same logic the author shouldn't tweet for free either.

