
Unlocking the commons - meanie
https://www.niemanlab.org/2019/01/unlocking-the-commons/
======
thunderbong
Very interesting article.

>> The most economically powerful thing you can do is to buy something for
your own enjoyment that also improves the world. This has always been the
value proposition of journalism and art. It’s a nonexclusive good that’s best
enjoyed nonexclusively.

I think there's a lot of wisdom in that.

------
jtr1
The author seems to be describing something like a multi-stakeholder
cooperative. Instead of members just insisting that you give away the content
free, you could also directly involve members in the governance of
organization, giving them a say in the editorial direction of the outlet. A
democratically run media cooperative has the potential to solve the two-sided
problem of legitimacy and funding, if you could get the model right.

~~~
zapita
I completely agree. Legitimacy and funding go hand in hand. What I'm wondering
is how to design a democratic system capable of running such a cooperative,
not just in theory, but in practice? There are many ways to implement
democracy, and a lot of research on the topic. I'm not an expert so I don't
know if there's a canonical "good answer".

For example:

\- Would members vote directly on issues, or elect representatives to decide
on their behalf? Or perhaps a combination of both? If so, what is the
threshold?

\- How would voting be implemented? Rank-choice? Quadratic voting? Some other
system I'm not aware of?

------
cousin_it
Here's something simple that I don't understand.

Imagine someone comes up with a better funding model for online content
creators. At first glance it seems like it should make creators better off.
But there's a basic econ argument saying that won't happen, or will happen to
a much smaller extent, because online content creation is an industry with
free entry and exit. If you pour more money, more people will enter, until it
equilibrates with other industries again: the total money+popularity+fun
someone can get as a content creator becomes equal to the money+popularity+fun
the same person can get in their next best occupation. In short, their
livelihood won't improve much. Could even get worse, if the new funding model
attracts even more people by publicizing its successes more than failures.

That's not to say a better funding model won't have any effect. It will
certainly increase the total amount of content. But we don't have a shortage
of content now, we have a glut, and adding more will only make it harder to
stand out. So why do content creators call for better funding models? What am
I missing?

~~~
klagermkii
I think the aim of better funding models is to allow more specialised content
that is of higher value to people with an interest in that niche to be viable.
In theory that allows more creators that are focused on a niche to thrive,
rather than just creators that have generically good production standards and
reach a wide but non-committed audience who just have to provide "eyeballs".

Therefore I would assume there isn't homogenous enthusiasm from all content
makers for new funding models. Niche providers want it while mainstream ones
are happier with the status quo.

------
buboard
Patreon exists for a long time now. Judging from youtubers, it s not enough,
they have to seek sponsorships too. And it only works in rich countries

