Comments on: Billy Bragg nag http://kittenfluff.wordpress.com/2008/03/23/billy-bragg-nag/ No real main theme. This is a purely personal blog, consisting mainly of babble about cats, technology, and living in London. And it just might contain some rubbish about TV-type stuff or virtual worlds. Metamediaverses are the future my friend. Mon, 07 Dec 2009 00:06:39 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: Gary Eason http://kittenfluff.wordpress.com/2008/03/23/billy-bragg-nag/#comment-2704 Gary Eason Sun, 13 Apr 2008 20:11:46 +0000 http://kittenfluff.wordpress.com/?p=698#comment-2704 Content includes conversation; and unless people can see the content they aren't going to talk about it. ;-) Content includes conversation; and unless people can see the content they aren’t going to talk about it. ;-)

]]> By: Vinvin http://kittenfluff.wordpress.com/2008/03/23/billy-bragg-nag/#comment-2698 Vinvin Fri, 28 Mar 2008 01:47:29 +0000 http://kittenfluff.wordpress.com/?p=698#comment-2698 Heyyyyyy... I would love so much to talk to you. If you have 5 minutes. Vinvin (please) Heyyyyyy… I would love so much to talk to you. If you have 5 minutes. Vinvin (please)

]]> By: Ian Betteridge http://kittenfluff.wordpress.com/2008/03/23/billy-bragg-nag/#comment-2696 Ian Betteridge Tue, 25 Mar 2008 14:36:37 +0000 http://kittenfluff.wordpress.com/?p=698#comment-2696 Totally. It's an object lesson in classical economics. If you view the owners of social networks as owners of the means of production/distribution, and the contributors of content (even if that "content" is just a profile) as providers of labour, the picture becomes very clear... As I've said elsewhere, it is in the economic interests of the owners of means of production to minimise the value of labour: labour is just a cost to them. This is exactly the same pattern that we see with these "new capitalists" - they claim that content is worth (next to) nothing, while their own "networks" are what creates value, and so they should get all the reward. Totally. It’s an object lesson in classical economics. If you view the owners of social networks as owners of the means of production/distribution, and the contributors of content (even if that “content” is just a profile) as providers of labour, the picture becomes very clear…

As I’ve said elsewhere, it is in the economic interests of the owners of means of production to minimise the value of labour: labour is just a cost to them. This is exactly the same pattern that we see with these “new capitalists” – they claim that content is worth (next to) nothing, while their own “networks” are what creates value, and so they should get all the reward.

]]>