Don't Put the Fence Up!

Photo By: JAIRO BD

In Pay Me for My Content, Jaron Lanier discusses free content and its availability on the internet.

However, after reading his article, instead of taking away anything of insight, Lanier comes off as someone who is a little too bitter about the fact that he was unable to cash in on the world of free information that the internet currently offers us.

Lanier sounds as though he is stuck in an old ideology that dictates that anything of value or service always ought to come with a price.

Here is where I beg to differ. In fact, I think the premise that the internet runs on, that of the exchange of free information, is exactly what is making it so revolutionary. People lose interest when you want to take their money. "Fencing off" the internet to only those who have the ability or are willing to pay for content is rather ridiculous.

The reason information, news, data, and knowledge can be shared so fast online is not just due to the technology. It is because it's free. Most information is easily accessible and does not cost the reader anything to access, hence its appeal, and the reason why the internet has become a valid resource base.

Lanier says: "To help writers and artists earn a living online, software engineers and Internet evangelists need to exercise the power they hold as designers. Information is free on the Internet because we created the system to be that way."

In essence, he is saying that those who created the internet need to exercise their control and put limits on what the viewer has free access to.

Whatever happened to the democratization of the internet?!

I think what Lanier has failed to observe is that instead of trying to determine ways in which writers can charge for access to their content, writers really should be looking at alternative ways to make their content matter.

As we have learnt in this class, citizen journalism has not made mainstream media irrelevant, it has just forced the mainstream sources to up their game, and make sure that what they are publishing is of impact and purpose.

In fact, perhaps Lanier should read The Paradox of Choice. Here, Barry Schwartz even argues that when given too much choice consumers often revert back to the mainstream leaders anyway (see his Coke example). So what is Lanier so paranoid about?

Furthermore, throughout the article, Lanier name drops in regard to companies he has worked for and supported (or not), in an attempt to make the reader feel as though the comments he is making are legitimate, as if he is a real "insider" in this online realm of activity. He just sounds like a man with a grudge to me.

Overall, it seems as though Lanier has really misunderstood the potential possibilities of the internet, and the ways in which writers need to adapt their styles and business models in able to compete in an increasingly expanding online industry.