Comment on Cause-effect was always a broken narrative. Twice-broken when you attach a pricetag.
Flagstaff@programming.dev 5 weeks agoUm, if you punch me, I’m gonna be in pain. That’s a directly caused effect, so how is that “specious?”
But you seem to be talking about something money-related, so an example of what you mean would be very helpful.
rainrain@sh.itjust.works 5 weeks ago
Maybe I was inspired to punch you by a YouTube video. So it could be said that the creator of the video punched you.
Consider a painting. A piece of art.
We say the artist made it. But we could also argue that the manufacturers of the canvas, paint and brushes are owed credit. And the artist’s parents of course. And the society in which the artist was raised. And every source of inspiration.
This could be said of every work, product, pile of amassed wealth… Cause is uncertain therefore ownership is uncertain.
But there are certain stories that we prefer. Therefore, given the option, we choose them.
And truth has little to do with it.
Is this not obvious?
Flagstaff@programming.dev 5 weeks ago
Okay, finally, this makes more sense; I think you mislabeled the post as “cause and effect” when you’re really talking about ownership of property. Now this we could talk about endlessly, since it’s been such a hot topic with AI’s copyright-dodging.
A good example I think of is Adobe InDesign (if I recall correctly), which only trains its AI models on content that is specifically AI-crawl-approved.
rainrain@sh.itjust.works 5 weeks ago
Yes, I think that the concept of cause-effect is inherently broken (tho useful, yes) and therefore the concept of ownership is broken. The game is broken.
I demand greater rigor from the latter because it is the system by which we run our society etc.
What is the proper approach to winning a broken game?
Flagstaff@programming.dev 5 weeks ago
I still contend that you’re misusing the phrase “cause and effect” and that it’s not “broken,” because there is a clear cause: greed. Selfishness causes people to try to take ownership of goods or services to which they didn’t contribute—and the effect is compensation not reaching its correct owners.
Sure, but you can’t really enforce that demand since you’re not a king of the land or something. You’d need to get into politics and stop lobbyists or something.
Counterpoint: why do you need to “win?” Why not fight with fairness, and do what you can to ensure that the producers around you receive what they’re due, even if you may end up receiving less as a result?