Content pfp
Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Cameron Armstrong pfp
Cameron Armstrong
@cameron
Fatter tails on upside outcomes via Internet distribution implies quantity of reps matter more than quality Quantity of reps going up implies median quality of rep going down, but it also implies improved quality of rep through repeated practice Where is the free market of human activity going to lead us?
6 replies
2 recasts
15 reactions
proxy pfp
proxy
@proxystudio.eth
what does "free market of human activity" mean exactly
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Cameron Armstrong pfp
Cameron Armstrong
@cameron
left it open ended bc I genuinely think this logic applies to basically any human endeavor today but if I had to define it I’d say something like “any approximately meritocratic industry, social group, or subculture that is influenced by modern technocapitalist incentive structures”
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
proxy pfp
proxy
@proxystudio.eth
I agree about quantity of reps mattering, but have little faith that most industries or groups that consider themselves meritocracies are actually meritocratic. we have a long way to go, crypto and even more so tech rely on credentialism, insular networks + superficial indicators of prestige > talent, contributions
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Cameron Armstrong pfp
Cameron Armstrong
@cameron
But we already see a ton of pre-existing industries forced to acknowledge more and more winners selected by the “free market of human activity” a la internet distro Standup comedy Music Writing Even if we hate our algorithmic overlords and the proxy is imperfect, it’s a pretty bad time to stan Gatekeeping haha
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
proxy pfp
proxy
@proxystudio.eth
I'm not sure I agree, industries acknowledge virality, but they seem pretty happy to own the platforms. Has the quality of music, standup comedy or writing improved with internet distribution? Is it easier for musicians, comics, or writers to sustain careers purely based on their talent?
2 replies
0 recast
0 reaction
proxy pfp
proxy
@proxystudio.eth
Maybe a specific example will help: did X monetizing views on Twitter make for better posts from a wider range of posters? Did the good posters naturally rise to the top?
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Cameron Armstrong pfp
Cameron Armstrong
@cameron
A few thoughts: -I haven’t said anything about platform monetization (platform payouts are usually the smallest % of creator revenue) bc I think the real incentives are off platform -I think X today is a laggard not leader in free market of human activity -Pre-Elon x for sure elevated a wide variety of posters
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
proxy pfp
proxy
@proxystudio.eth
regardless of where the real incentives are, I just don't think that internet distribution means that quality rises to the top. It's not a defense of gatekeepers, I'm questioning applying market logic to creative fields. Producing great writing, music, 'content' ≠ distribution, the existence of new ways to share 1/2
2 replies
0 recast
0 reaction
proxy pfp
proxy
@proxystudio.eth
doesn't imply that what is being shared is better. The people I know supporting themselves with substack are not the best writers I know
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Cameron Armstrong pfp
Cameron Armstrong
@cameron
i think everyone gets to define for themselves what quality means for them i want creatives to be able to spend more time doing what they love but i also think since we our definitions are uniquely ours, the only useful societal quality measure is what “most people like” and the internet reveals this v well imo
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction