Earlier today (yes I started very early today) I wrote in response to a comment that I grew up in the early Internet days were a large part of the reality was the sharing of content and helping of newbies. These beginnings have influenced me greatly and I still believe in the idea that technology should be used to increase free communication and information.
Not all people maintain their beliefs. The ex-Internet idealist Jaron Lanier writes in a New York Times op-ed that he wants to be paid for his content. In his earlier life Lanier even wrote manifesto’s like “Piracy Is Your Friend” and now he has come to the realization that his prior positions were not based in reality. He writes:
But I was wrong. We were all wrong.
The problem is not that there is anything wrong with free content but rather that Lenier want’s to be paid for his free content. He is still waiting for the big payoff.
How long must creative people wait for the Web’s new wealth to find a path to their doors? A decade is a long enough time that idealism and hope are no longer enough. If there’s one practice technologists ought to embrace, it is the evaluation of empirical results.
Obviously I do not know enough about Lanier but I suspect that its all his unpaid free content that have created his position and standing that enable him to write in the New York Times – this is not a soapbox for just anyone. Lanier you have been rewarded – it’s just that you want a larger reward. Fair enough.
But lets not overstate the case. A self-acclaimed Internet idealist recants and wants to be rewarded. The beauty of the collective technological soapbox is that it will constantly provide new writers, thinkers, creators and debators with the platform they (and we) need to be able to communicate. You want to be paid? Fine, then go offline and work with that model. The rest of us are being rewarded for the work we do online – otherwise we will stop.
The end of an idealist is not the end of idealism.
