I recently read Cory Doctorow's "Chokepoint Capitalism" and William Deresiewicz's "The Death of the Artist" which both decry the sentiment that somehow Big Tech has been a boon for artists.
The reality is that anti-competitive practices in these companies has made them more of an extractive monopoly rather than a market to connect artists and art "consumers." To your point on revenue sharing, both Youtube and Spotify have laughable revenue shares to the point that even well known musicians have to tour nonstop to make ends meet. At what point does "exposure" benefit the artist more than it benefits the platform for having free art?
I am sympathetic to the idea that the revenue share isn't great, and I also agree that there are anti-competitive practices, and the market would do well with more competition. But i do think its the wrong starting point to believe views or listens on these platforms should be enough to sustain a creative career for most artists.
As you alluded too, even amongst the most well known musicians they make a lot of their income from touring, my perspective here is that these platforms when well used give you exposure, then with a linktree / beacons link an artist can develop a relationship with some of their audience that provides further opportunities to fund themselves.
Its a great question to ask when the "exposure" benefits the artists more, and when it benefits the platform more, i'd personally love to see some quantitative analysis of that. My suspicion is for most small artists with audience sizes of less than 100k people (in the west, the calculus is probably different in the rest of the world) the benefit to the artist is really great. For someone like Taylor swift it benefits the platform more, but at that point she can negotiate directly
>As you alluded too, even amongst the most well known musicians they make a lot of their income from touring, my perspective here is that these platforms when well used give you exposure, then with a linktree / beacons link an artist can develop a relationship with some of their audience that provides further opportunities to fund themselves.
I mean, you repeat the oldest joke in the art industry. "we'll pay you in exposure". While doing nothing that a proper publisher/distributor/producer would do to help give that exposure. Especially on a platform with a perverse incentive to aquire artists instead of foster them. History's been very cruel to this concept and bringing it up these days will simply be seen as a dogwhistle. It more or less only benefits the "golden child" and extracts from everyone else.
In addition, at what point does an Artist stay and artist and instead becomes an entrepreneur who sings on the side as an ad? I feel like this core society has pushed to have artists rely on not their craft, but business acumen to make ends meet is an inherently toxic one develop by... who else? existing businessmen. Then this sentiment of business spreads to your audience as you are called a "sellout". Becuase yes, you are literally selling out merch instead of what audiences value.
It's just a backwards model all around.
>i'd personally love to see some quantitative analysis of that.
if you want to dig around for the rev share, that can help. But from what I've seen: even people well above 100k can struggle to pay rent depending on their location. these platforms incentivize a constant stream of content, which is incompatible with most traditional art.
I'm making the point that the base rate of criminality needs to be taken into account if you want to compare incarceration rates. For many different reasons people in one society might commit more crime than people in another society.
Though I do not use the example myself, preferring the murder rate example, the parent's suggestion is a reasonable way to control for this inter-society difference. I would bet that Japanese in the U.S. evince rates of criminality more similar to those of Japanese in Japan than to the rest of American society. It's an empirical question; whether merely asking the question is racist or not given your particular sentiments about what's racist is beside the point.
I've realized we're probably confused about whether we're talking about Japanese in America vs. Japanese-Americans. I was talking about Japanese in America (the article is about a foreigner in Japan), but I'd make roughly the same claims in either case. Empirically, I would bet that both Japanese in America and Japanese-Americans both show rates of criminality more similar to Japan's than to the remainder of the U.S. population's. In the case of Japanese-Americans, I'd bet it's higher than Japan's. I haven't looked any numbers up or attempted to figure it out in detail.
As for why, there are a few reasons. One interesting one is selection effects (immigrants to a new country are not a random sample of the old country's population). There is culture, of course, probably the biggest factor, as well as other inheritances (material goods / wealth, genes, disease burden...).
I'm genuinely curious to know how you think about that line. What is the transgression here in your mind? Merely mentioning that genes affect behavior is not allowed (even though it's true, or maybe it doesn't matter if it's true), or you actually believe the claim "genes affect behavior within the human species" is false?
I agree with you that we can't tell from a single gene whether someone is likely to be a criminal or not. I'd like you to consider this example, where hopefully I only use premises you already believe:
Some people are predisposed to becoming addicted to drugs. We can make better-than-chance bets about who these people are based on their genomes. We also know that people who are addicted to drugs are more likely to be on the wrong side of the law (and, sadly, are often by definition on the wrong side of the law). So, we conclude that, given someone's genome, we can make better-than-chance bets about that person's likelihood of being on the wrong side of the law.
It's a simplistic example, but hopefully that helps get the idea across. Doing this sort of thing isn't super practical right now, but it will be soon! [oh boy.]
Genes are certainly affecting the behavior somehow. That doesn't mean they are relevant. Cultural and educational factors have certainly a much bigger impact on behavior than any gene related effects.
Example of flawed reasoning similar to yours: genes have probably an impact on the way we speak (it's impacting the shape of our tongue somehow, etc etc). So maybe the French have their accent due to some genetic factors, and we could predict someone's accent looking at their genes. Well it turns out in practice, if you have "French genes" and are born and raised in a US environment, you'll have an American accent indistinguishable from someone with "US genes"
If genes are affecting behavior [I assume you mean variation within the species], then why wouldn't they be relevant? Relevant to what?
I agree culture is the biggie (education is part of culture).
Your example gets at a correlation that can be used to make good predictions. Better-than-chance bets. The example I gave with drug addiction supposes the reader already believes that genes have a causal relationship with drug addiction. That is, a propensity to be, say, an alcoholic can be in your genome and not a result of environmental factors.
Given this logic if America had a policy of throwing everyone with blond hair in jail for "hair crimes" you would conclude it is a fairer system than Japan's if Japanese-Americans had a lower incarceration rate than Japanese people in Japan.
That's some heroic effort in defense of America's high incarceration rate.
Further up on this thread someone wrote "If you ever thought the American justice system is bad...".
Someone else wrote wrote " Not trying to handwave away issues with the Japanese system, but scale seems relevant here. Japan: 40 incarcerated per 100k population [1] USA: 655 incarcerated per 100k population [2]"
So I read your post in that context. The conversation seemed to me to be about whether the American or Japanese justice system is "bad". Fairness would seem to be an aspect of "good" or "bad"... if you weren't trying to argue the American justice system was "good" I've lost the context of what you were trying to say.
Or rather economic reasons, the difference between the median income for Asian Americans is about the same as the difference between white people and African Americans.
No, it is the question that is racist. The assumption that because of your ethnicity, you would have some kind of specific level of criminality. That is extremely racist.
You're assuming a causal relationship when the claim is correlational. The claim is not that because of a person's ethnicity that person will commit crimes at a certain rate, the claim is that you can make a good guess about criminality based on ethnicity. That is to say, there is a correlation. Which is unambiguously true--just look up the numbers. Only takes a moment.
In either case, whether it's racist or not is irrelevant to the issue at hand.
My honest read here, and I really wish to emphasize that this is honest feedback and not an attempt to put you down, is that you don't have a solid grasp of causation vs. correlation.
I appreciate you engaging. It's fun and important to talk about stuff like this.
The reality is that anti-competitive practices in these companies has made them more of an extractive monopoly rather than a market to connect artists and art "consumers." To your point on revenue sharing, both Youtube and Spotify have laughable revenue shares to the point that even well known musicians have to tour nonstop to make ends meet. At what point does "exposure" benefit the artist more than it benefits the platform for having free art?
reply