PayPal not the answer to enclosure of the Medium commons
If PayPal is the answer, then what was the question?
We believe people who write and share ideas should be rewarded on their ability to enlighten and inform, not simply their ability to attract a few seconds of attention. — Ev Williams
Let’s take Medium. There are so many writers here, posting fresh and insightful thoughts and stories. The majority aren’t getting paid for writing but they still churn out tons of posts. So why do all these writers write? — babulous
I took a cue from Medium and put a Paypal donation widget on my posts. — Mike Essig
If we look at what was stated by Medium five years ago:
So, we are shifting our resources and attention to defining a new model for writers and creators to be rewarded, based on the value they’re creating for people. And toward building a transformational product for curious humans who want to get smarter about the world every day.
It is too soon to say exactly what this will look like.
It looks very much like a commons to me. I see no mention that writers will be paid, I see no mention of charge for access. But I do see the creation of a common wealth.
What was created, and what Medium functions as, is a de facto commons.
Writers are not writing to be paid, they are writing because they have something to say, they wish to be read.
And even Ev Williams has admitted, Medium has been a success, it has attracted quality writing.
I was one of those writers, contributors of high quality content, who were invited to be paid, to reside behind the razor wire of enclosed commons. I declined the offer.
That is not to say writers should not be paid, it is to argue that remuneration was not what attracted them to write for Medium.
If you wish to support quality reporting, then support The Intercept, but do not confuse with hacks paid to to fill column inches with meaningless drivel.
For writers there are always options such as LeanPub and Unbound, though each has its faults.
People are confusing several different issues, charging to access the commons, payment of writers.
There is a charming naivety to think $5 is going to writers, writers who no one will see, because they will be hidden in a fenced off ghetto. It will not even make much difference to the Vulture Capitalists. It is to inflate the value of Medium in order that it be sold and a fast buck made. The only real value, are the commoners, and they could vanish overnight.
But where I would agree, the problem lies with the greed of Vulture Capitalists, who were simply looking to make a fast buck.
DHH:
It’s a crying shame, really. I love Medium. It’s the best writing environment on the web, and they sweat the details like nobody else. The community too is just peach. This could have been a love story for the ages.
But I don’t think we’ll grow old together, Medium and I. I suspect it’ll end quite tragic, actually. $132,000,000 is a lot of money after all, and that’s how much venture capital Medium has been dipped in. Before having a prayer or a song about how to turn into that multi-billion-dollar business it must to satisfy the required rate of return.
As DHH points out in his enlightening essay RECONSIDER, on entrepreneurship:
Part of the problem seems to be that nobody these days is content to merely put their dent in the universe. No, they have to fucking own the universe. It’s not enough to be in the market, they have to dominate it. It’s not enough to serve customers, they have to capture them.
In fact, it’s hard to carry on a conversation with most startup people these days without getting inundated with odes to network effects and the valiance of deferring “monetization” until you find something everyone in the whole damn world wants to fixate their eyeballs on.
In this atmosphere, the term startup has been narrowed to describe the pursuit of total business domination. It’s turned into an obsession with unicorns and the properties of their “success”. A whole generation of people working with and for the internet enthralled by the prospect of being transformed into a mythical creature.
As Charles Eisenstein has pointed out in Sacred Economics, few make money on the internet, and the economic value of the activity is a fraction of that it displaces.
David Moser has hit the nail on the head:
The change Mr Williams was looking for in reading, writing, and publishing has already happened with Medium, and it happened because some similar small groups of people recognized the quality of each other’s work and supported each other, giving encouragement, discussing difficulties, spreading the word amongst friendly readers on the periphery. I was a small part of this, as were many others.
I read what I decide to read, not what someone tells me, or trusted writers, I may follow up on what they reference or recommend.
And David Moser emphasises what we have created, a de facto collaborative commons, and describes how it functions, people support each other, collaborate, they do not do it for pecuniary gain.
There is a big difference between sustainability, organic growth, securing the future viability of Medium as a commons, and satisfying the insatiable greed of Vulture Capitalists.
Enclosing the Medium commons has nothing to do with paying writers, collaboration with fellow commoners was its own reward. It has everything to do with feeding the insatiable greed of Vulture Capitalists.
The Vulture Capitalists have failed to recognise we are now postcapitalism, where information flows freely.
They have also failed to recognise, blinded by their greed, that without the commoners, there is no Medium commons.
That is not to say we should not look at how we guarantee the long-term sustainability, or look at how writers could be paid, but my fear is, once we start paying writers, and I am one of those writers Medium offered to pay, we will lose the intrinsic value of a collaborative commons where the commoners freely collaborate, we risk losing what has made Medium the success it has become.
I have already suggested look at the bandcamp model, where if readers choose to pay a writer, then a small cut goes to maintain the platform.
For this reason PayPal is not the answer, and I wonder for how long Medium will tolerate PayPal contributions without their cut.
FairPay cards in action in Heraklion
We take our life on our hands through self-management!
medium.com
If we are to pay, or donate maybe a better word, then I would suggest use faircoin. It cuts out any middlemen who take their cut, especially with the launch of fairpay card which can be charged with faircoin.
I have often seen the option to make a donation to support writing, but that is not the reason the person is writing.
- fNmzNYrLJHZhDzGM3AEGECZ51nkUKyph6g
- fXdguh69T52Zwrur98Ci66bqjZuwLBCHph
- fPkSPhRfcAvrND9GKgSffjM3DKTvNYWjGE
Faircoins has the advantage that is part of FairCoop, which if we believe in the collaborative commons we should all be supporting.
Commoners like Mike Essig who have paid their $5 per month are finding it is money down the drain. All they get is a lousy header.
And what I have seen of the promoted content, it is like all promoted content, crap.
Those doing the promoting and curation, classic example of what David Graeber would call bullshit jobs.
The only ones doing any creative work are the commoners.
