by
Astra Taylor
View all notes
The commons are accessed asymmetrically, like the massive repositories of genomic data that have been made available online by scientists who hoped the repositories would become a “global resource, shared equally,” but which have been overwhelmingly used by private biotech firms in a handful of wealthy countries. The romance of the commons—the idea that a resource open to all will be accessed equitably and create a more just outcome, that differences evaporate online, openness ensures fairness, and the goods can be “free” to all without negative consequence—ignores the problem of inequality. In reality, differing circumstances, abilities, assets, and power render some better able to take advantage of a commons than others.
Marketers, understandably, have never wanted to underwrite an independent content industry, but in the wake of the quiz show scandal they had no choice. Because newspapers, television channels, and radio stations controlled access to audiences, advertisers were strong-armed into ponying up money that funded investigative journalism and educational programming. In the analog world, publishers and broadcasters bundled people into audiences, which they sold to advertisers. But in a digital world, advertisers can “buy the audience without the publication.” The sorts of people who read the New York Times, the Nation, or Cat Fancy can be reached outside of those channels, bought and sold elsewhere on the Web at a fraction of the price, with the revenue going into other pockets.
quoting from this 2012 Atlantic article: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/02/im-being-followed-how-google-151-and-104-other-companies-151-are-tracking-me-on-the-web/253758/
While it may look like we are getting something for nothing, advertising-financed culture is not free. We pay environmentally, we pay with our self-esteem, and we pay with our attention, privacy, and knowledge. But we also pay with our pocketbooks, and this is key. Advertising is, in essence, a private tax. Because promotional budgets are factored into the price we pay for goods, customers end up footing the bill. That means that, all together, we spend more than $700 billion a year on advertising, a tremendous waste of money on something that has virtually no social value and that most of us despise.
Advertising, after all, doesn’t feed or house us, or educate us, or enlighten us, or make our lives better or more beautiful. Instead, advertising makes our culture less spirited and fearless, more servile and uninspired. Surely all that money could be better spent producing something we actually care about.
I think because it seemed hard, and because it seemed comfortingly objective. I had gotten myself into this incredible existential funk as a child about moral relativity and animal rights-- I had a crazy animal rights and environmental magazine was pathologically invested in it, and also completely convinced that I was going to start a revolution among young people, like other 10- and 11-year-olds. But when I went to public high school I realized that not everyone agreed with me. Everyone wasn't a crazy hippie. I thought, "How do I know I'm right and everybody's wrong?" And so I turned to the sciences. It's also where you get that feedback loop, academically: positive reinforcement, good grades, stuff like that, and it's so easy to climb. That was something completely new to me, having grades, having gold stars. I got into that.
on why she wanted to study physics at Brown. i love this. v relateable
This relates to something Elif said at the beginning, about how as an aspiring writer she believed she should not read novels in order to be a real, creative genius. I love my influences, but I would advise people to be more like young Elif! Protect and cultivate and trust your untrammeled instincts a little bit, just for fun.