this post was submitted on 03 Apr 2025
1336 points (96.9% liked)
Technology
68495 readers
3500 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Yes, it is, if your desire to get paid causes you to remain on corporate-controlled social media, to the detriment of society.
Not to mention, plenty of people can and do put hundreds of hours of work into projects that they don't ask for payment for.
"Content creators" who get paid through advertisements are class traitors whose interests are aligned with the capitalist class. They will fuck over society to make a buck for themselves.
No, my point specifically relates to creative work. You said in your comment:
This is false, basically. They can do other types of work. Creative work can be done without making money for it. Plenty of people have a day job and make creative work in their free time. The same option is not available for most other types of work, such as government, doctors, lawyers, etc. If you try to do these types of jobs outside of the framework of a regulated business, you'll get the book thrown at you.
The issue I'm getting at isn't "are you responsible for the actions you take to make a living". Rather, I'm getting at the issue of "does creative work require becoming an employee of a capitalist company, thereby siding with its shareholders in having a vested interest in increasing that company's profits regardless of the societal damage caused?"
The answer to that question is a resounding "no". Creatives need to grow a spine and get a day job.
It has to do with the societal consequences of how them "valuing their time" impacts people. Nurses refusing to do volunteer nursing has little impact on the overall system of access to healthcare.
Healthcare is heavily regulated through legislation, and is going to be free or paid or corporate or not corporate largely as a result of the legislation. Nurses can't just do what they want. People who are concerned about the state of healthcare should therefore change things by targeting legislation, not by targeting nurses.
Creative work is not like this. Creatives refusing to do do volunteer creative work means that either they will charge for their work, which creates a barrier to access, or they will use (and push others to use) platforms like YouTube and TokTok that make money from ad data.
The former choice results in class differences in access to art, and the latter choice results in everyone using platforms that have proven themselves to be hostile to minoritized groups and progressive causes. These outcomes aren't legislated -- they are the result of creatives choosing to "value their time".
In otherwords, creatives choosing to "value their time" means that they will happily enforce class-based restrictions in access to art, and will happily support conservative corporations and surveillance capitalism.
And I practice what I preach, too. I have spent thousands of hours developing free software and making free educational materials for people, donating my labour to support progressive causes and supporting others who do the same. Creatives who insist on charging for their work are a ball and chain on the movements I support. They are leeches and class traitors.
Creatives should value other people. Fuck their time.