[chelmzy]

Good. I hope we return to a time where people made stuff because they want to. Not because they see it as a payday.

[safety1st]

I agree. An influencer is just a marketing person. It's gross actually that we call these people creators and compare them to artists, musicians etc.

Artists and musicians produce genuine creative work that creates a great deal of skill and creates a lot of enjoyment. They often do this for little or not money purely out of their love for the medium. Meanwhile influencers post photos of themselves with products in order to get you to buy stuff. Or they record clickbaity YouTube videos interspersed with ads from sponsors. They specifically identify themselves as commercially oriented - the term "influencers" comes from the concept of "influence marketing" which has been around for decades and has simply been taken up a notch online.

It's not on the same level as genuine art, which is not there to change your purchasing habits. All the influencer content is "optimized for engagement" i.e. they have thought about how to get you addicted, so you consume it, but you would be better off if you consumed actual art and music instead.

[keiferski]

The idea of art being purely a non-monetary activity, and that it is somehow "made dirty" by the introduction of money, is largely a 20th century thing. Most of the people you would likely consider "artists" throughout history created most of their art as commissions, for money, to people paying them to create that work. For example - virtually everything Michelangelo created was paid for by a rich benefactor – and yet I certainly wouldn't suggest that he disliked painting/sculpting or wasn't skilled at it.

[sofixa]

That's naively optimistic. Many many jobs are only done for money and no gratification - think cleaning, serving, maintenance of many things (electric/water/internet infrastructure), bus drivers, security etc etc etc.

Nobody grows up dreaming they'll work at McDonalds, and nobody _wants_ to work at McDonalds. They want to have a decent salary to live on.

And in general, many people work to live, not live to work. For them the things they _want_ are things outside of work like hobbies, family, etc. and a job is just a means to an end - having enough money to live and do the things they actually enjoy.

[yunwal]

Plenty of people grow up wanting to be a cook though. Usually if you take the “low-status” element of a job away and give people autonomy, the shitty jobs become desirable to someone. Hell, I know kids who want to be garbagemen because hanging off the back of the truck seems fun.

[glitchc]

While this comment is correct, the OP is specifically referring to creators, not all vocations. This comment doesn't apply. Influencers could easily work at McDonald's but they are choosing to remain online because they presumably enjoy the act of creation.

[azherebtsov]

I agree with your point in general. However, it will not be fair to say that nobody wants to be a bus driver or keep the internet alive. Think about train driver in Switzerland who enjoy stunning views every day by doing a routine job daily.

[bityard]

I think you missed the parent's point. For starters, "making cool stuff" and "holding a steady but boring job" are not mutually exclusive.

Perhaps more importantly, being a successful "influencer" seems to require accepting and internalizing a startling amount of personal and societal dishonesty. From buying your views/ranking to shilling products that you would never use, or are even actively harmful. (Like VPNs that are literally anything but private.)

[keiferski]

Then you’re going to have to undo the destruction of journalism, local entertainment, and a lot of other industries that have been eliminated or cut down by tech. People are trying to make money via their blogs because the journalism job they would have gotten a generation ago doesn’t exist anymore.

[lagrange77]

This should be the goal.

Technology exists in the first place to reduce the execution of unwanted tasks by humans. Universal basic income can help here, while the economical model of the world adapts to the pace of technological advancements.

[sofixa]

> Technology exists in the first place to reduce the execution of unwanted tasks by humans

Alternatively, the The Jevons Paradox:

> The Jevons paradox occurs when the effect from increased demand predominates, and the improved efficiency results in a faster rate of resource utilization.

As for this:

> Universal basic income can help here, while the economical model of the world adapts to the pace of technological advancements.

I might be pessimistic, but I don't see universal basic income being a thing in the next decade or so in any developed country. If anything, we'll probably go in the opposite direction with the looming demographic challenges (fertility rates below replacement, leading to an increase in the median age and the % of people working vs people not working, and most notably for many many countries, contributing to retirement/social security schemes).

[woodruffw]

I think you’re describing most jobs.

[WesleyLivesay]

It seems natural that in a world in which you need money to survive people who like to do a thing would like to be able to do that thing for money so that they don't have to do something else to survive.

[Ensorceled]

I'm curious as to why you think artists (and other people who make stuff) shouldn't want to get paid.

I write code and I expect to get paid, for instance.

[bityard]

Do all artists produce works of the same artistic, cultural, and monetary value?

[chelmzy]

We're talking about influencers here. Not artists.