No, People Who Choose To Write On The Internet For Free Are Not 'Slaves'
from the swing-low,-sweet-chariot dept
For the sake of humor, I am generally a big fan of hyperbole. Miley Cyrus is cheaper than a half-off sale at the flea market. The Chicago Cubs are more futile than a company that builds igloos in Hell. See? When you're trying to be funny, hyperbole just works. However, when you're trying to make an actual point, comparing people who have agreed to write for free on the internet to slaves doesn't work, isn't funny, and deserves an argumentative kick in the rocks. We saw this previously in a ridiculous lawsuit by writers of The Huffington Post who somehow thought that their previous agreement to write for free entitled them to untold amounts of cash.
Yet, despite the stupidity of that lawsuit, we're back on the topic again thanks to a New York Times piece that somehow conflates asking for a free written work with slavery, not calling people after you have sex with them, and the nuclear bomb (and, no, I'm not kidding about any of those three). Here are some highlights from Tim Kreider's screed against the world.
People who would consider it a bizarre breach of conduct to expect anyone to give them a haircut or a can of soda at no cost will ask you, with a straight face and a clear conscience, whether you wouldn’t be willing to write an essay or draw an illustration for them for nothing. They often start by telling you how much they admire your work, although not enough, evidently, to pay one cent for it.Aaaaand we're off, and on shaky ground, no less. I have received numerous cans of soda and even haircuts for free in my life, but I understand what he's saying. If something has value, thou must pay for it. Which would be all fine and good if the concept of writing on the internet were a one-way street, a la a soda can. If Mike Masnick comes up to me, says he's thirsty, and asks me to simply give him my soda can so that he might drink the sugary goodness of it, I am left without my soda can and have gained nothing in return, economically speaking. However, if Mike Masnick asks me to write for Techdirt for free (which he did), and I agree (which I did) with the idea being that I'd get some pleasure from it, build up some reputation that might lead to future paid work (which it did, for Techdirt, actually), and so that I can include that work when I send out query letters to literary agents in the future (which I did), then the transaction works both ways. We both attain something of value and the price tag on my writing is only one part of the equation. In other words, this analogy sucks.
But Kreider takes this on directly.
A familiar figure in one’s 20s is the club owner or event promoter who explains to your band that they won’t be paying you in money, man, because you’re getting paid in the far more valuable currency of exposure. This same figure reappears over the years, like the devil, in different guises — with shorter hair, a better suit — as the editor of a Web site or magazine, dismissing the issue of payment as an irrelevant quibble and impressing upon you how many hits they get per day, how many eyeballs, what great exposure it’ll offer.Well, you know what, chief, not all of us are willing, capable, or privileged enough to write silly op-eds for the New York Times. Many of us actually do value that exposure that Satan is offering us, which is why we, you know, agree to do this stuff. It seems to me to be the height of arrogance for someone who has done well for himself attempting to unite a population against what they themselves had agreed to do, on the notion that he knows better for the masses. Now for some of the fun stuff:
-This is partly a side effect of our information economy, in which “paying for things” is a quaint, discredited old 20th-century custom, like calling people after having sex with them.
-Just as the atom bomb was the weapon that was supposed to render war obsolete, the Internet seems like capitalism’s ultimate feat of self-destructive genius, an economic doomsday device rendering it impossible for anyone to ever make a profit off anything again.
-Here, for public use, is my very own template for a response to people who offer to let me write something for them for nothing...I have to admit, that last one is my favorite. The simple irony of completing an op-ed about how you should never give away your writing for free by then giving away something you wrote for free is the kind of thing I couldn't think up. At some point when the idea formed inside my head, the synapses would all shut down, angrily insisting that something so stupid should never be put into print.
That's why this former slave is thankful that he had the opportunity to write for free, which became writing for pay, all while avoiding writing an entire op-ed with a culminating line that negates the entire thing.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: exposure, free, hyperbole, slavery, tim kreider, writing
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Old man yells at the cloud?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Isn't this economics 101? The whole something is worth only what someone is willing to pay for it and people don't do stuff unless they think it's worth it? Aka supply and demand and market value and all that jazz?
(sorry I almost paid attention in economics... obviously sleeping through it got me more information than others...)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In terms of pricing, this is true.
But that is not to say that things are without value unless they have a price tag attached. Lots of incredibly valuable things don't cost cash money.
This is one of the most corrosive effects of making a society All About Capitalism: the idea that the only way to value things is through money. That kind of thinking is what lets corporations get away with doing abominable things, as everything just boils down to a cost/benefit equation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That's not what capitalism is nor is it an effect of basing an economy on capitalism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Thank you, @ John Fenderson. That's the problem I have with the Large "L" Libertarians. They think slavery to money is freedom. No, it's Ferengi.
Alien.
And as you most correctly pointed out, corrosive. In a people-first society, nobody whines about the prospect of someone else profiting off your work and they don't demand that the govt. stops picking winners so they can do it themselves, by which I mean, "for-profit-only medical care via charity for the poor means that only the most appealing people get funded."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Okay, Timmy! Now you get to slave away on a collective farm.
http://www.universityherald.com/articles/4886/20131010/students-chinas-xi-institute-technol ogy-working-unpaid-interns-foxconn-allegedly.htm
US industry has been hollowed out. The nice life you have now has been mortgaged, and will be collected on by international bankers. Pension plans and Social Security are being looted. "Bail-ins" are planned to take money directly out of your bank accounts. By any measure, right now YOU owe the bankers hundreds of thousands, Timmy. You're going to live in debt slavery.
But you play FPS games and think you're literally a big shot. Sheesh.
I could go on, of course, but why write for free defending dolts who oppose me?
Because YOU enjoy smirking and giggling while race to the bottom. Hail the plutocrats and bow low when they approach.
You are refusing to defend the economic rights that our grandfathers fought and died for -- and I mean literally against corporations right in the US of A. Your generation believes that The Rich are generous benefactors, when in fact they're always as tyrannical as can get away with.
Phooey on you. Deserve what you get, then.
In ten years, as corporatism advances and takes away the rest of your future, you won't find yourself funny.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Okay, Timmy! Now you get to slave away on a collective farm.
Well, I had always hoped you were doing this for free. I'd dread to think that someone was actually throwing money at your worthless daily hate fests.
The question then becomes, why do you do it? You add nothing of value, constantly lie, don't even address the same ball park as the opinions you're trying to refute. Yet, here you are, day after day.
If you care so much, why do you spend your time writing fiction on the internet and get out and do something about the corporations that scare you so much (when you're not busy defending them if you can use them to attack the object of your obsession, of course)?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Okay, Timmy! Now you get to slave away on a collective farm.
***follows this up by going on anyway, apparently trying to mimic the final graf of the article in question***
My life is now complete....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Okay, Timmy! Now you get to slave away on a collective farm.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Okay, Timmy! Now you get to slave away on a collective farm.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Okay, Timmy! Now you get to slave away on a collective farm.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Okay, Timmy! Now you get to slave away on a collective farm.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I have to disagree
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I have to disagree
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I wouldn't consider it a breach of conduct for either of these to happen, any more than the people who consistently ask me for free PC technical support or movie information consider it to be a breach of conduct to ask for those.
Of course, I would consider it rude for someone to ask me for either of those for *literally* nothing, but then I'm not a money-obsessed sociopath unable to see the value in anything without a dollar amount involved. Sometimes, the value is merely in helping someone out, practising your own skills or in some other intangible benefit.
I suspect the real message here is "people don't want to pay me for my uninformed opinions as much as they used to and that fact scares me".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
yeah, me too. Usually just ask for beer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Free Work
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To use his devil analogy, the Devil is merely a tempter. He cannot force you to do anything, all he can do is make offers and suggestions. It is always within your power to reject him. So much like the devil, if someone asks you to continue working for free when you wish tangible payment, you can always tell them to go to hell instead of giving them what they want.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not the best example
perhaps saying your wrote for free for TechDirt and now get paid by *Techdirt* to write, is not the best example to explain to them their wrongness ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not the best example
Kreider is arguing basically, that writings must always be paid for with cash. Whereas Geigner is saying that there are times where writing for free can be advantageous for both parties, and proves his point by reminding everyone that he wrote for free for Techdirt at first, then they offered him a paid job, once he was able to prove he could write quality articles regularly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Everyone does it, not just musicians / writers etc
The idea is that we draw in a group of people for the seminar and some of them may choose to give us more business. It also means that more people know who we are and what we do and also that we do helpful things for free on occasion... these people tell their friends / contacts / clients.
People should use free to try and generate not free.
I will admit though that there are certainly those who will take advantage of free offerings. All the time we get calls from "prospective" clients who are really just trying to get some free advice from us over the phone when we are trying to explain what we know and what we do.
The important thing is for people to stand up for themselves and say "no" if they do not think it is fair in that situation. If they can't do that then they should reconsider their choice of work. If they can't find a way to get paid for it then they shouldn't work at it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Violating the Fourthteenth Amendment cancels out our violations of the Fourth Amendment."
Talk about your new legal standards!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unpaid work
This case is obviously quite different from unpaid internships, but it seems at least morally questionable for a publisher to request specific work without payment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Unpaid work
http://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/2013/06/14/is-the-unpaid-internship-dead/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Did he get paid for his NYT Op Ed?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Did he get paid for his NYT Op Ed?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Did he get paid for his NYT Op Ed?
"Tim Kreider says people should always be paid for articles...explained in an op-ed he wrote for free". That is all. Nothing more needed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Did he get paid for his NYT Op Ed?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Only problem is, the lady who was leading them was... a slave owner who 'enslaved' her 'pet' dog!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Too many outlets will choose to use "not too shitty" content produced by amateurs in return for EXPOSURE, DAMMIT, thereby reducing the market for good content that is compensated .... Because "Our competition doesn't pay, we're not gonna hamstring ourself by paying."
This leaves us all with unending amounts of of mediocre content and very few sources of quality content because, hey, when a producer is working a normal gig to eat and house himself, he doesn't exactly have the time required to hone his craft to rise above amateur level.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's like trying to fly by running fast and denying the existance of gravity. It won't work unless you take the appropriate measures.
Same thing with selling content, if you can build a brand, get the hype, get the exposure and demand, you can make the money you want. If you can't get that force behind it, no amount of complaining will get you off the ground.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I don't know why you think that would be unpopular. That's a Good Idea. However, that's a lot different than what the op-ed author was saying: that it's immoral to give the product of your effort away for free.
I don't think that's actually true to any appreciable degree, but let's say it is for the sake of argument. My response is: so what? Live by the "free market", die by the "free market".
So, exactly like things have always been, then?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Yes, the writer the post is about holds the position that its immoral to work for free. While I don't agree, I see how he got there.
IMHO, while we have a ton of free content nowadays, most of it is of lesser quality than was available for free or small price in the not too distant past. The ability to be employed at subsistence level wages as a junior-anything content creationwise has pretty much evaporated in this era of New Media.
As a result, we have more expensive paid-to-be-created content and "not-too-shitty" not-paid-for content published in return for exposure.
Yes, it's certainly possible to transmute those supposedly-valuable eyeballs to a following to a paid job, but that requires the amatuer content producer also be a crazy-talented marketer. While its certainly possible for the amateur creator with a day job to also be an effective enough marketer to turn those eyeballs into a job, it's certainly extremely unlikely to be successful.
As a result, this guy thinks that anyone producing content for free is cutting not only their own throat, but his, too. He also thinks that people who expect free content creation for their business enterprise, either from others or himself, are jerks. Not that I necessarily agree, but again, I see how he got there.
I'm not bemoaning the buggy whip manufactures here.... I'm just saying that that there has been something lost in our greater culture when we lost the ability to have talented amateur content creators employed in junior positions in content creation situations while they better their craft.
Nowadays all the content creation that would have been done by those lost juniors is done for free by the same types of people who would have BEEN those juniors not too long ago. Except today, they have to be a marketing savant AND work a day job to survive while producing loads of quality content, hoping that they will beat incomprehensible odds and turn pro. Even thinking about this gives me a huge sad.
I think of it like outsourcing .... New Media outlets don't pay for their content, so they can operate (as far as the consumer is concerned) for free, paying the other bills from advertisements. A not insubstantial part of this business setup is predicated on the lowest possible cost for the content being re-sold (for eyeballs, not money) ... And when it comes to creative types, the lowest possible cost is $0.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
In my own humble opinion this is nonsense. From the masses of films generated on a site like Vimeo, the wonderful artwork on sites like Deviantart and the many, many websites with all kinds of commentary on all kinds of topics, there is masses of excellent content which I don't have to pay for.
The difficulty is the curation of it and finding the right channels which fit you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Want to get paid to write ? Give people what they want !
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And yet that is invariably how members of our species spend the first 16-odd years of our lives (just ask your parents).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I think you're making the Kreider's point for him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So it is not in TD's interests to generate quality, but rather to generate page hits, therefore quantity.
Neither is there are relationship between accuracy, true or quality, just quantity.
So if saying lies, or not telling the truth, or inciting hate results in higher quantity, that is what they will do.
This is why TD is what it is, and not something else.
As it's quantity over accuracy, honesty and quality of course they will do their best to get that quantity for as cheaply as possible either by writing MANY, MANY articles, or copying others writings, or scamming people to write for them for free (not really free, just to keep the profits).
Someone is always paid, its just often not the writer !!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Just like fire fighters are paid, even when they are not actually fighting a fire.
Yes, it's true, they actually get paid just to sit at the fire station waiting for the bells.
When an article is posted on TD SOMEONE IS GETTING PAID, because TD is paid by Google for views, so if Tim generates "views" by posting an article, and he is not paid, because SOMEONE is being paid, it's still a payed work, it still makes money.
Just the author gets none of it, TD keeps it all, so you are not doing 'unpaid' work, you are doing PAID work, you are just not being paid for it !! See the difference ?
So Tim not only are you giving away the article and the product of your work, you are giving away the money made from that work. Doubly stupid. But your choice.
Of course it is to TD advantage, they get paid and have to do no work, nice scam though!!!
Internships are totally different, as they profit from that work in that they gain experience and work experience, their 'profit' or payment is that experience and learning they gain from it.
That is not the same as an "established" worker doing what they are experienced in for free. (not really for free, but for payment to go to someone else).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Except of course that I get paid to write articles, and I got that paid gig by first writing here for free. Does basic English escape you, or did you just not bother to read the post as per usual?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
your writing for free
There is a 'price tag' on your 'free work' but that money is for TD and not you, if TD can get you to create works for them to allow them to profit from your work and are happy for TD to keep all that money, what does that say about you ?
And what does that say about TD, who are happily profiting of your work, and not sharing that profit with you ?
If you can get material that you don't have to pay for and make money off that, why would TD NOT do that.
Taking advantage of other peoples efforts and works is a great deal of what TD is all about.
Its a good scam, get gullible people to do work for you for no money, 'sell' that work (by paid advertising to see that work, thanks Google), and it's a win, win for TD they get free work and make money off it, and you are happy to give them that work everyone wins !!!!
"keep em hungry, keep em keen"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: your writing for free
I've just appraised darryl with honesty and accuracy. He now owes me money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: your writing for free
Except (1) we pay Tim for his writing, as is clearly stated in the post and (2) we don't use Google ads and haven't in many years. Also, (3) ads pay shit, and barely cover our bandwidth bill. We're not making any profit off of ads.
Other than being 100% wrong, you're... well, nope you're just 100% wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: your writing for free
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: your writing for free
Oh dear, didn't this get debunked as a bunch of shit a few months ago? As in, it was shown that those who write articles regularly for TD are paid for the work on a freelance basis, forcing the morons who repeatedly claim otherwise to flee in embarrassment?
Come on, if you're going to troll the site (for free, no less, unless you're admitting to be a paid shill), at least come up with a new lie.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think Tim missed reading part of the editorial
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
and what about capitalism?
The capitalism need consumers and consumers have to be workers first. If workers get no paid, apart from "exposure", "conversation", "engagement" and this kind of social media stuff people can not pay for products and services and the capitalism collapse.
I understand the feelings to move people to work for free - and we graphic designers know a lot about this - but the reality is that social media success doesn't work when you have to consume (you need money for that) - and the economy can't work whitout consuming.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: and what about capitalism?
The capitalism need consumers and consumers have to be workers first. If workers get no paid, apart from "exposure", "conversation", "engagement" and this kind of social media stuff people can not pay for products and services and the capitalism collapse.
I think your understanding of capitalism may be a bit limited.
A few key points: (1) capitalism is about the exchange of utility for utility where each party feels better off. Sometimes the utility is money, but not always. There are ways to get paid that aren't money. (2) You presume, incorrectly, that none of these actions then also lead to payment. That's wrong. Exposure, conversation and engagement can and often do lead to monetary compensation as well. You just have to figure out how to find the friction point where you can turn it into money...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]