the class of people who own the world and control all the assets may finally begin to see the error of their ways
Their ways? Arianna Huffington didn't cause the current epidemic of narcissism making people willing to write for free to stroke their ego as he aptly noted. She also didn't inherit HuffPo so all that talk about socialism and inheritance tax is just more signalling on the author's part. Which is why they chose him.
If some street hustler challenges you to a game of three card monte you don't need to bother to play, just hand him the money, not because you're going to lose but because you owe him for the insight: he selected you.[1]
the current epidemic of narcissism making people willing to write for free to stroke their ego as he aptly noted
To be fair, some people write for free to learn things, share things, and spread knowledge. That's why I started a blog. And virtually all professors, who produce work for journals, don't get paid directly via their writing, but rather via their home institution, and sometimes other means (like grants).
Universities are different than the HuffPo, but the point is still important.
"...people willing to write for free to stroke their ego..."
Or to get exposure, which is a requirement for making a living in any creative endeavour.
Note: Huffington exposure isn't worth much, but neither is exposure from writing articles in most journalism outlets. That doesn't prevent every last writer from having a list of "published in Time, Newsweek, Mr. Peabody's Literary Conglomeration,...and the Washington Post" in their brag paragraph.
But she is causing it, as are people selling fixie bikes, and barbers who give the bros their haircuts. It's funny that people don't call her Huffington more often, as if she were engaged in something more noble than say Hefner.
This is the basic model of a lot of similar companies. Get people to provide content for free, then profit from control over the repository. If it weren't for copyright protections, HuffPo and its ilk would just copy your blog posts verbatim and call it a day. They're one step up from the sites that auto-generate product reviews or display reformatted Wikipedia articles.
I agree with the writer's points that HuffPo seems like a pretty bad deal for the writer; but honestly how different is that from HN? Ignoring the fact that HN makes no money; the product they offer is obviously desirable or people would stop visiting. Therefore, it is worth something.
A large portion of the top content on HN comes from peoples' personal blogs. While these blogs often run ads, I seriously doubt those ads provide much income beyond covering the hosting bills. So people are obviously willing to write for free.
HuffPo realized there was a market opportunity in connecting people who were writing for free anyway with an audience for their content. I guess my biggest problem with their business model is that the offer seems like a freelance writing gig and could obviously dupe someone who doesn't ask the right questions.
So in the end I don't really have a problem with their business model, but their approach to sourcing content seems a bit disingenuous. If they were more up-front about the lack of payment, I would have less of a problem with this.
The difference is that no one from HN is asking you to write something. It's not the same "I wrote this thing because I wanted to and I'm letting HN/HuffPo link/mirror on their site" and "You asked me to write something for you, so you can win more money, and I'm doing it for free". One is an article for you, the other one is work for another person.
What are Huffington Post's intellectual property terms? That could be a big distinction between Huffington Post and HN.
On HN, nobody signs over any IP, nor does the copyright holder necessarily grant a license of any sort. (If you doubt that, consider the fact that I can submit anyone's URL to HN. So submitters aren't assumed to have any authority over the IP.)
With periodicals, though, there usually is a contract with writers where rights are assigned to the publisher. Maybe the copyright, maybe just a license. There's usually something along those lines.
So the difference between HN and such periodicals (which may or may not include HuffPo) is the difference between merely sharing a link and signing over IP rights.
I'm not exactly sure how HuffPo works, but my understanding was that they host, display, and provide the content as their own. Which is completely different from HN, which simply LINKS to the content itself. So the author/whoever is free to generate their own ad revenue or whatever else they'd like from their content. And HN does none of that.
The same guy contacted me and I've submitted a couple of pieces since. He was very upfront and clear about what was being offered, i.e. submit the things you're writing anyway to us, and subject to editorial discretion they may be featured on some hugely-trafficked section, else just archived on "the blog".
For doing this they offer you a small profile with various links: to your amazon books, your website, twitter, an RSS feed as well as the "exposure" and (ever decreasing in value) bragging rights of writing (well, blogging) for the Huffington Post. You give them doctored versions of the blog posts you're writing anyway with a slight risk of hurting your own SEO.
I think everyone is privy to their business model but IMO it's win-win unless you're in a position where others are already keen to pay for your work.
If you look from the right angle everything it's win-win, the point is how much one win is worth compared to the other. Your boss tells you he would totally give you money if you do some boring chores he doesn't want to do, it's win-win. But if he gives you $1000 and then proceeds to make 10 times that with the product of your work, then it's actually a WIN-win for him.
Not related,but I would like to mention this regardless:
>>No party will suggest the rational solutions: if hard work makes us rich, let’s tax inheritance at 85%, so the children of rich men have to work hard too. But no: that would never do
I never understood this argument. I am not rich by any means,but why would my children have to pay 85% on things that I want to leave them?? It's idiotic - I worked hard to earn those things,why would the government want 85% of their value?? On what basis and logical reason? To make my children "less lazy" by doing so?? They can mind their own children - I will mind mine.
> but why would my children have to pay 85% on things that I want to leave them?? It's idiotic.
No, it's not idiotic. It's income to them they receive without working, it should be taxed higher because those who work for their money should not be taxed higher than those who simply have it given to them.
> I worked hard to earn those things,why would the government want 85% of their value??
Yes, and that's yours, not your children's. The only person you can give large sums of money to tax free is your spouse; to everyone else, that's new income and it should be taxed, and large sums should be taxed heavily because inherited wealth is anathema to democracy.
You can't have a functioning democracy and allow capital accumulation to the elite in such large sums that their children become kings with the power to buy politicians and affect law without having the benefit of having worked for that money and really understanding what it means to not be wealthy.
> On what basis and logical reason? To make my children "less lazy" by doing so??
No, to stop them from destroying society.
> They can mind their own children - I will mind mine.
You live in a community and it's not all about you and yours; try not thinking about yourself so much and look at the bigger picture. Inherited wealth is bad for society, earned wealth is good for society. You earned your money, keep it; your children should earn their own on their own.
You want to give money/goods to your children so that they have a easier life and need to work less to get the same decent life as anybody.
This is totally valid, up to a certain point. Let's take the other extrem, when a child could inherit enough to get a better life without working than someone working his whole life. There is absolutely no need of such a concentration of wealth.
That's why inheritance should have a strongly progressive taxation rate.
85% is way steep, but the general idea is necessary. It prevents the development of a de-facto hereditary aristocracy and also prevents the economy from being winner-take-all. (Citation needed; I can't find it at the moment.)
I can not stress this enough: NEVER work for free. Don't do unpaid internships. Also try to avoid selling yourself under value (hint: you are probably worth at least twice you could imagine). Ever had someone accept your demanded rate without negotiating? You know you must ask for more next time.
Besides owing it to yourself, working for less than your right wage will harm your industry.
I can understand the frustration of the author, however, HuffPo is not a government or social entity. It IS part of the free market. I am a huge proponent of the free market, however, that does not mean the free market will be perfect. In the short term, there are fits and starts and cycles that everything goes through, but it is only through the free market that we will progress over the long-term.
Writers are unfortunately caught up in one of these free-market tornadoes, and to survive, they need to transform.
The author, instead of looking at this as "writing for free", should look at this as an opportunity to create his personal platform. HuffPo is paying him by giving access to their audience. It is up to him to take advantage of that. Yes, it's not easy, but it's reality.
But what is the actual benefit of the HuffPo platform? I don't think anyone sees "HuffPo Contributor" as a byline and considers the author to somehow be a legitimate writer. Nor does HuffPo give any percentage of ad revenue.
The best possible scenario is that readers get used to seeing your name on the Huffington Post, so they return for your future posts. Great. You don't get paid for them either.
Can you point out even one success from this platform? Someone who started out on HuffPo and has become successful?
No, I think the author has every right to be insulted and angry over the presumption that he should work for free. Just saying "well, that's the way it is" is intellectually lazy, and portraying a dominant middleman like HuffPo as a healthy part of a genuinely free market is simply wrong.
There is nothing in the free market economic rules that promotes or guarantees progress over long-term, including journalism. The good economic outcomes did not come and will not come out of that rules. All econometric models will show you how other assumptions were required for that to happen.
It will be actions other than free market ones that will allow or not the survival of journalism. Hope they will get it before they die.
By the way: I assume you're a developer of some sort, since you're reading Hacker News. I need an app developed. My start-up has raised a few million in funding, but we can't pay you with money. Writing code is clearly something you're passionate about, and giving you an outlet for that passion should be compensation enough.
"The wealthiest families in the UK are those of the Earl of Cadogan and the Duke of Westminster, both of which inherited ownership of prime London real estate. They have done nothing to develop that real estate, nothing to earn it, and their ownership benefits absolutely nobody except for themselves. In fact, their total control pushes housing costs so high that the entire nation has become indebted to pay excessive mortgage costs, simply to protect their ownership of land that is, in national and global terms, economically dormant."
This is completely true, apparently. I was just listening to an Economist podcast episode on real estate in London. Existing housing property cannot be redeveloped for higher density because the existing long-term leases do not come up for renewal at the same time and must be renewable. On the other hand, the freeholder (the one actually owning the property) is in theory responsible for infrastructure but is apparently free from that responsibility in practice.
If a for-profit business seeks to employ you without financial compensation they are breaking the law. If you offer your services below minimum wage you are breaking the law. If the worker's services are an integral part of the employer's business the worker is an employee of that company. If the role isn't an essential functions of the company you could be a contractor.
Either way you must pay wages.
Or can the text on pages like these be stretched to say exactly the opposite of what it says?
Employers can’t avoid paying the National Minimum Wage if it’s due by:
saying or stating that it doesn’t apply
making a written agreement saying someone isn’t a worker or that they’re a volunteer
Vrijwilliger verricht werkzaamheden voor een organisatie zonder winstoogmerk.
De organisatie mag geen (bedrijf) B.V. of N.V. zijn, tenzij sportvereniging.
De vrijwilliger verricht het werk niet als zijn beroep.
translation: Must be a no-profit, must not be the same work as your paid job. You may help relatives for free as long as you are not getting social support.
I'm curious now, how does Hufington Post (New York) do it?
I wouldn't pay him either. I got bored after the second paragraph.
Before you downvote: I have hired hundreds of writers in my time, and am currently paying out hundreds of dollars/day to content creators at http://newslines.org/newslines-rewards/
I sympathize and share the author's dislike of this particular business model, however, I am fairly certain the Huffpo staffer addressed didn't read past the first paragraph.
[+] [-] spindritf|11 years ago|reply
Their ways? Arianna Huffington didn't cause the current epidemic of narcissism making people willing to write for free to stroke their ego as he aptly noted. She also didn't inherit HuffPo so all that talk about socialism and inheritance tax is just more signalling on the author's part. Which is why they chose him.
If some street hustler challenges you to a game of three card monte you don't need to bother to play, just hand him the money, not because you're going to lose but because you owe him for the insight: he selected you.[1]
He owes them an article on cancer, I believe.
[1] http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2013/05/dove.html
[+] [-] kitsune_|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jseliger|11 years ago|reply
To be fair, some people write for free to learn things, share things, and spread knowledge. That's why I started a blog. And virtually all professors, who produce work for journals, don't get paid directly via their writing, but rather via their home institution, and sometimes other means (like grants).
Universities are different than the HuffPo, but the point is still important.
[+] [-] mcguire|11 years ago|reply
Or to get exposure, which is a requirement for making a living in any creative endeavour.
Note: Huffington exposure isn't worth much, but neither is exposure from writing articles in most journalism outlets. That doesn't prevent every last writer from having a list of "published in Time, Newsweek, Mr. Peabody's Literary Conglomeration,...and the Washington Post" in their brag paragraph.
[+] [-] 0xdeadbeefbabe|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] autokad|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] salimmadjd|11 years ago|reply
1 - get free content from the writers.
2 - get free marketing and traffic from the writers (who tell their friends and follower about their article they've just posted on the Hufpo)
Most of the articles you write are all hidden in some sub-pages that no one but your friends or google seo would ever find.
edit: formatting.
[+] [-] danielweber|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rayiner|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] exelius|11 years ago|reply
A large portion of the top content on HN comes from peoples' personal blogs. While these blogs often run ads, I seriously doubt those ads provide much income beyond covering the hosting bills. So people are obviously willing to write for free.
HuffPo realized there was a market opportunity in connecting people who were writing for free anyway with an audience for their content. I guess my biggest problem with their business model is that the offer seems like a freelance writing gig and could obviously dupe someone who doesn't ask the right questions.
So in the end I don't really have a problem with their business model, but their approach to sourcing content seems a bit disingenuous. If they were more up-front about the lack of payment, I would have less of a problem with this.
[+] [-] gjulianm|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jarrett|11 years ago|reply
On HN, nobody signs over any IP, nor does the copyright holder necessarily grant a license of any sort. (If you doubt that, consider the fact that I can submit anyone's URL to HN. So submitters aren't assumed to have any authority over the IP.)
With periodicals, though, there usually is a contract with writers where rights are assigned to the publisher. Maybe the copyright, maybe just a license. There's usually something along those lines.
So the difference between HN and such periodicals (which may or may not include HuffPo) is the difference between merely sharing a link and signing over IP rights.
[+] [-] aikah|11 years ago|reply
You cant,HuffPo is totally for profit and sold like 100millions to AOL.HuffPo is a giant ad page like most AOL "news" network.
[+] [-] joekrill|11 years ago|reply
How is that even remotely the same?
Plus:
> Ignoring the fact that HN makes no money;
Isn't that kind of a huge point?
[+] [-] jebus989|11 years ago|reply
For doing this they offer you a small profile with various links: to your amazon books, your website, twitter, an RSS feed as well as the "exposure" and (ever decreasing in value) bragging rights of writing (well, blogging) for the Huffington Post. You give them doctored versions of the blog posts you're writing anyway with a slight risk of hurting your own SEO.
I think everyone is privy to their business model but IMO it's win-win unless you're in a position where others are already keen to pay for your work.
[+] [-] cliveowen|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gambiting|11 years ago|reply
>>No party will suggest the rational solutions: if hard work makes us rich, let’s tax inheritance at 85%, so the children of rich men have to work hard too. But no: that would never do
I never understood this argument. I am not rich by any means,but why would my children have to pay 85% on things that I want to leave them?? It's idiotic - I worked hard to earn those things,why would the government want 85% of their value?? On what basis and logical reason? To make my children "less lazy" by doing so?? They can mind their own children - I will mind mine.
[+] [-] gnaritas|11 years ago|reply
No, it's not idiotic. It's income to them they receive without working, it should be taxed higher because those who work for their money should not be taxed higher than those who simply have it given to them.
> I worked hard to earn those things,why would the government want 85% of their value??
Yes, and that's yours, not your children's. The only person you can give large sums of money to tax free is your spouse; to everyone else, that's new income and it should be taxed, and large sums should be taxed heavily because inherited wealth is anathema to democracy.
You can't have a functioning democracy and allow capital accumulation to the elite in such large sums that their children become kings with the power to buy politicians and affect law without having the benefit of having worked for that money and really understanding what it means to not be wealthy.
> On what basis and logical reason? To make my children "less lazy" by doing so??
No, to stop them from destroying society.
> They can mind their own children - I will mind mine.
You live in a community and it's not all about you and yours; try not thinking about yourself so much and look at the bigger picture. Inherited wealth is bad for society, earned wealth is good for society. You earned your money, keep it; your children should earn their own on their own.
[+] [-] rjaco31|11 years ago|reply
This is totally valid, up to a certain point. Let's take the other extrem, when a child could inherit enough to get a better life without working than someone working his whole life. There is absolutely no need of such a concentration of wealth.
That's why inheritance should have a strongly progressive taxation rate.
[+] [-] r3m6|11 years ago|reply
The inheritance tax is a very democratic tax and benefits society as a whole. And it is good for your kids.
See also http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/269796/listen-to-adam-sm...
[+] [-] mcguire|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mrottenkolber|11 years ago|reply
Besides owing it to yourself, working for less than your right wage will harm your industry.
[+] [-] autokad|11 years ago|reply
reminds me of al bundy, no phone calls today, but tomorrow twice as many!
[+] [-] sixQuarks|11 years ago|reply
Writers are unfortunately caught up in one of these free-market tornadoes, and to survive, they need to transform.
The author, instead of looking at this as "writing for free", should look at this as an opportunity to create his personal platform. HuffPo is paying him by giving access to their audience. It is up to him to take advantage of that. Yes, it's not easy, but it's reality.
[+] [-] untog|11 years ago|reply
The best possible scenario is that readers get used to seeing your name on the Huffington Post, so they return for your future posts. Great. You don't get paid for them either.
Can you point out even one success from this platform? Someone who started out on HuffPo and has become successful?
[+] [-] Borogravia|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vevoo|11 years ago|reply
It will be actions other than free market ones that will allow or not the survival of journalism. Hope they will get it before they die.
[+] [-] aikah|11 years ago|reply
Huffpo is just like TV.It's to make people's brain ready for the 5 minutes of ads during and after each show.
The OP should take advantage of it and not take that content farm seriously,because it's garbage anyway.
[+] [-] chasing|11 years ago|reply
By the way: I assume you're a developer of some sort, since you're reading Hacker News. I need an app developed. My start-up has raised a few million in funding, but we can't pay you with money. Writing code is clearly something you're passionate about, and giving you an outlet for that passion should be compensation enough.
My e-mail's on my profile page. Please reach out!
[+] [-] smnrchrds|11 years ago|reply
This seems awfully short. Can anyone shed some light on why this is the case?
[+] [-] mcguire|11 years ago|reply
This is completely true, apparently. I was just listening to an Economist podcast episode on real estate in London. Existing housing property cannot be redeveloped for higher density because the existing long-term leases do not come up for renewal at the same time and must be renewable. On the other hand, the freeholder (the one actually owning the property) is in theory responsible for infrastructure but is apparently free from that responsibility in practice.
London sounds worse than San Francisco.
[+] [-] gdewilde|11 years ago|reply
for as far as I could figure out...
If a for-profit business seeks to employ you without financial compensation they are breaking the law. If you offer your services below minimum wage you are breaking the law. If the worker's services are an integral part of the employer's business the worker is an employee of that company. If the role isn't an essential functions of the company you could be a contractor.
Either way you must pay wages.
Or can the text on pages like these be stretched to say exactly the opposite of what it says?
us: http://www.dol.gov/elaws/esa/flsa/docs/volunteers.asp
uk: https://www.gov.uk/employment-rights-for-interns The netherlands: http://www.belastingtips.nl/zakelijk/aftrekbare_kosten/vergo... translation: Must be a no-profit, must not be the same work as your paid job. You may help relatives for free as long as you are not getting social support.I'm curious now, how does Hufington Post (New York) do it?
[+] [-] josh_fyi|11 years ago|reply
This means that such sites will get only thinky veiled marketing.
[+] [-] unknown|11 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] Grae|11 years ago|reply
[1] http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/12/09/a-note-to-you-should-y...
[+] [-] sparkzilla|11 years ago|reply
Before you downvote: I have hired hundreds of writers in my time, and am currently paying out hundreds of dollars/day to content creators at http://newslines.org/newslines-rewards/
[+] [-] jessaustin|11 years ago|reply
We pay $1 for each approved post. Each post is 50-100 words, has to follow our simple style guide, and must to link to an original news article.
[+] [-] hartator|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|11 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] markbnj|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hartator|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] eloisant|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|11 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] petercoolz|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|11 years ago|reply
[deleted]