Tinder's Gini coefficient is 0.58, meaning "it has higher inequality than 95% [of] the world's national economies"pic.twitter.com/hPx9ANR0Kz
Show this thread
-
Yes. Yes. One of the major points I don't think is made nearly enough is that the attentional supply is a commons. Sure, each individual has agency over how they direct their attention. But if a particular actor consumes the vast majority of it, they should be regulated/taxed.
"...the attentional supply is a commons." ? I can't think of anything that belongs less to the commons than my personal attention & cognition
-
-
Thank you. The concept of human attention as a commons is actually the subject of 1984, and the ideological core of totalitarianism.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Agreed. To even call it a good is weird. But it’s definitely rivalrous and excludable, right? Making it a private good.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
The commons model seems useful and predictive to me. In the original example, you scramble your cow to the commons first to over-graze it before everyone else does - a wealth-destroying Nash equilibrium. 1/4
-
Similarly, media organizations scramble to get a story out first, even though it'll be inaccurate, because if they don't, someone else will. You could make better use of that attention, but not if someone else gets it first. 2/4
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.