Lanier starts off the chapter by discussing how technology is putting people out of work. Or is it? He gives the example of Google translation. When an individual searches a phrase to translate, instead of having one person sitting in Google headquarters with an Spanish to English dictionary, Google just searches the internet for translations that have already been provided by people online. These translations always aren't perfect, but they get the job done. The individual who searched the phrase doesn't think of all the effort the people who made the translations did. That is why Lanier proposes that every individual that shares something of importance and knowledge be compensated for their contribution. The more valuable the information provided, the more compensation shall be received.
I think that this is a very interesting concept. My initial thoughts are that it is a great idea. But thinking about it in more depth, how would we be able to measure exactly how 'valuable' the information is. How can we say that the information that one person posts that is already readily available to us is better than roughly the same thing another person posts. How would these individuals be compensated? Would every single person have to set up a PayPal account that could have money be instantly deposited as soon as the post was official? What about every author that has original work? Would they get compensated every time their work got posted someplace else? Or every time a person used and cited their work? Even though the idea sounds great , I believe that there are to many roadblocks standing in the way of this thought becoming a reality.
I completely agree with your thoughts. If you had to pay to access absolutely everything on the internet people would stop using it and go read a book to find things out. Can you imagine having to pay for Wikipedia? It would never work and would set people back 50 years.
ReplyDelete