I didn't bother reading the article, but i find it deeply offensive so I'm making the obvious joke:
Internet posts are ubiquitous. Labor isn't scarce. Words are free. Anything digitized lacks scarcity, and therefor can't have value.
pull down to refresh
zaps forwarded to @denlillaapan (50%)
ouhw, how did I just see this post now?! (Came up in an SN search)
Yes, agreed 100%. That's why I'm so interested/concerned with all of this... where does the value of "content" creation come from in an age where supply/potential generation outstrips any attention span/consumption humans could possibly offer?
The labor theory of value was shot down in flames and crashed long ago. If you say that music has value due to labor, you are making a mistake in reasoning. Labor only has value when applied to something that creates value for someone else.
Someone gave you 1,000 sats for this post. Does that change your mind?
as i mention here, i don't agree that digitized things have no value. the point of the post is satire.
i think the argument that individual songs don't have value is absurd, too. the fact that amplified music is ubiquitous and individuals may not have to afford music has more to do with the fact that they are freeloaders to the entertainment environment (somebody else paid for the music they're listening to) than it has to do with the actual value of the music itself.
i do not dispute the suggestion that some songs are worthless (consider the case of "muzak" or so much of the LLM music that has been flooding the zeitgeist)
The debate appears to be primarily about the marginal vs. inframarginal: #796690