Alternatively: If I'm getting paid for factually-correct answers, I'm less likely to throw away money by using my answers as an opportunity to signal my ideology.
Very seriously, are you paid to do this? This is a collection of half truths, embellishments and very strongly reminds me of the recent NYT article on how Beijing Influences the Influencers.
I remember on one of the early StackOverflow podcasts that Joel very specifically wanted to stay away from any kind of monetary compensation for answering questions because as soon as somebody tries to do a $/time equivalency in their head the whole thing looks like a rip-off.
Much better to frame things as a way to show off to peers, help the community, etc.
Everyone says they'd do that, but I find really hard to believe.
I create rare, valuable information that saves people money and headaches. On a good month, 2% of my revenue will come from donations. Usually, it's 0%. At best, it pays for a meal and a beer. This website has 135k page views per month.
If that's how much I get from teaching people how to navigate German bureaucracy, I doubt you'll make anything from your opinions alone.
Yea it’s not new. Money converts freely and losslessly into speech, so it’s difficult to distinguish truth from a paid message. When you see a tweet or watch a YouTube video or read a comment on HN or hear a product endorsement from an acquaintance or hear a journalist tell you that something is “science“, how do you know it’s not paid for?
Advertising is more than just paying actors to pretend to like something. News articles rephrasing press releases are often also adds. Video game reviews are usually not simply handing money to someone. That does not make them unbiased.
People spreading Viral Videos are often unpaid paid, even if they are a critical part of a marketing campaign. Hand someone some free hardware and they don't think is this worth X, just is X cool.
reply