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
-
I think this is confusing something like network effects/monopoly with a consumption of finite resources? Directing attention to the thing you want to look at vs. the thing that's available is a search problem, not a consumption problem.
That said, you can model a human population as a pool of potential productivity that is diminished with leisure beyond some calculable optimum, and maybe generate useful ideas about growth, etc... but people, understandably, don't want to be well-managed fish
-
-
...which is why the authors propose taxing the people who make the things other people enjoy, rather than taxing the enjoyment directly (in one of the most finger-tenty explanations I've ever seen in a tax proposal)pic.twitter.com/MI2kGDWuVw
-
I thought about this more, and I think I was stretching the concept too far. Others have used the concept of an attentional commons (e.g. this NYT op-ed https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/08/opinion/sunday/the-cost-of-paying-attention.html …), but meant more like advertising intruding in public space, which is more traditionally commons-like.
- 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.