But some of these people would still copy the software instead of ordering the disk from us. We didn't really detect that, but the boss added a screen that just randomly pops up reminding the user that if you are running a copy now, remember that copying is WRONG.
We would get repenting phone calls from users begging to be forgiven.
They've already pirated the software so it's not morality, it's guilt.
Terrible wording aside, I think the two have both intersecting and unique qualities, guilt and morality, that depending on the person will be called into play at various points in the decision making process.
Disclaimer: IANAbehaviorist, I was just raised by one, and nearly married to one.
Maybe. Because it is a question on which significant numbers of people differ, it would be a poor choice for such a study.
> Is admitting that "Mohammed is the final messanger [sic] of God" moral or immoral?
No.
> Is calling the Pope God's representative on earth moral or immoral?
No.
> Is calling Jesus devine [sic] moral or immoral?
No.
> Until you can define what you're trying to measure, you cannot do any study.
Not every action is moral or immoral, and some actions have a moral component but it is debated which is preferable. On the other hand, LOTS of actions have clearly defined and widely accepted morality. Construct your study so you measure whether participants take more than their share of M&Ms or whether they cheat on the test when they think it will be undetectable.
True, but there are some actions which some people think are moral, and some think are immoral. The religious questions I gave are like that. People disagree about whether an action is moral or immoral. Some Christians will think that it's moral and right and good to call Jesus divine (and a sin and immoral to claim the opposite), whereas some (say) Muslims will think that it's blashpemy and wrong and immoral to call Jesus divine (and a moral and good thing to claim the opposite).
The incarceration rates of atheists vs christians in the US are quite telling.
1. I don't think the data actually exists. The commonly cited figure of 0.2% atheists is extremely dubious.
2. There are too many confounding factors and hidden variables. A plurality of Hindus speak Hindi, but believing in Hinduism neither causes, nor is caused by speaking Hindi. Likewise, if atheists are underrepresented in prisons, there are just too many simple demographic explanations to draw any conclusions about morality.
Seems like 0.07% from survey by Federal Bureau of Prisons.
I think if a video game loading screen told you "Piracy is WRONG!" it would be ineffective in GTA, neutral in Civilization, and effective about half the time in Mass Effect.
Likewise, if gonzo porn had interstitials about how copying is wrong, I doubt anyone would be moved by it, but if political feminist porn had little interludes where the director said she didn't make much off her work and would rather you support her, it would almost certainly be effective.
People who are religious will happily do a whole number of viciously amoral things, like go to war, kill people, or make others feel subhuman for their gender or sex preferences. But people in general will react as the situation warrants, and if you can control that situation you can control people.
There are undoubtedly angry people, willing to lash out at anyone they think may have wronged them, and some of those people may identify as feminists. That doesn't mean that feminists hate men, white or otherwise, anymore than men hate women as a class of people.
However, white men have a lot of cultural privilege in America, and privilege is an insidious beast. It's really hard to see unless you're on the wrong side of it, or spend time giving it some thought. I've been trying to be better about that lately, to at least become aware of the things that society have given to me with no effort of my own, but it takes time.
I don't want to rant at you, but I like to try to educate people when they mis-step. Personally, my ability to respect anyone comes from a place of understanding that they are trying to work to better themselves and others, and try to elevate the dialogue a little. Respect for decent Christians, and respect for Feminists, for me, comes from the same place.
They're just trying to do right in the world. It's hard though. The world is a tough place to get by for anyone, no matter where you come from.
Anyway, I hope you have some opportunities to grow and realize lack of respect for a group of people seeking to be respected is a failure of imagination on your part. I'm sure the world will keep presenting you the lesson until you've either made progress on it, or become so set in your ways as to be blinded to the possibility.
Ciao!
That's a nice false equivalence you've got there.
>However, white men have a lot of cultural privilege
Oh goody, you're hiding behind the boogieman, aka "privilege". In modern, "western" culture there's really no cultural privilege for men. Unless we're going to count the privilege to be drafted, or murdered, or die on the job with nary a twitch of the feminist diaspora.
>Anyway, I hope you have some opportunities to grow and realize lack of respect for a group of people seeking to be respected is a failure of imagination on your part
That's rather nonsensical. Just because a group wants to be respected doesn't mean they deserve respect.
Feminism advocates for autonomy for everyone. Everyone should be able to make choices about how to live their life instead of having those choices made for them. Everyone should have control over their own body. Everyone should have control over their own self image.
You may not perceive it, but many people live in cultures in which they are strongly pushed toward ideal body types, lifestyles, and choices from many angles: family, community, media, friends. This affects both men and women. If people who live in traditionally patriarchal western cultures can now say honestly that they perceive no gender bias, then feminism has won. It may not have won the war, but it has at least won some battles, and it will continue fighting for equality for all.
> If you believe that modern western cultures are not gender biased and this state of affairs is worth preserving, then you are a feminist! You can't deny it because you have just advocated for gender equality.
No, if you're going to insist on naming it, it is "egalitarian". I also don't believe this state of affairs is worth preserving.
>Feminism advocates for autonomy for everyone.
No, no it doesn't. Feminism, by design and definition, advocates for the rights of women. Or rather, I should say, "womyn" since large, vocal factions of the feminist movement don't support the rights of trans-people. But I'm guessing you're one of those feminists that like to no true scotsman those feminists out of play, I guess their opinion don't count.
Also, fuck your patriarchy bullshit. It's a convenient scapegoat and surrogate evil upon which much of modern feminist dogma is based.
Feminists advocate for the rights of women but not exclusively so. We advocate equality and address inequalities. Feminists support men as well when they are victims of inequalities. Of course, feminism is a broad movement and not a dogmatic cult, and therefore you will find those who do not support the rights of trans people, but they are not representative of the majority of feminists.
Since its inception in the 19th century, feminism has expanded to address all aspects of gender in culture and identity. Many feminists like myself do not consider gender to be a binary position but a spectrum of cultural expressions. It is therefore impossible to advocate the rights of women without advocating the rights of men because no one is entirely "man" or "woman." No one fits neatly into static gender stereotypes. The rights of trans, intersexed, and genderqueer people are extremely important as we move forward.
In the long term, I feel it's especially important that we question traditional gender roles because we have an increasingly powerful ability to manipulate our biology. We will see increasing amounts of people with bodies and minds that do not conform to our expectations because they are fundamentally different, and we need to develop a cultural understanding for relating to people who do not conform to our preconceived notions of gender expression.
There's the privilege to not be raped.
Or, the privilege to not be sexually harassed, on the street by strangers, in the office by people you have to see every day, or anywhere else.
The privilege to wear clothing that is comfortable and cheap and socially accepted, and to wear that clothing without being judged as having "given up" or being slobbish.
There's the privilege to register at a conference without being assumed to be the boyfriend of the co-worker you're at the table getting badges with.
There's the privilege to get a job, fellowship, or acceptance to a school without being seen as an "affirmative action" choice who must not be really good enough for whatever position you've obtained.
The privilege to speak up for yourself without being called a bitch, and to do so on the Internet without receiving rape threats.
The privilege to grow up with a massive and wide variety of role models who are active, dynamic agents enforcing their will on the world, rather than submissive prizes awarded to those who wear down their "resistance" until they submit.
It is utterly laughable to suggest that being a man does not come with a huge, incalculable amount of privilege, in any part of the world.
It is insane to do so in the technology community, which has been acting to expel what few women attempted to inhabit it (probably not by intention, but certainly by result).
Now if only it weren't for the fact that the majority of rapes are institutional, ie. in prison, and are committed by women against women. Or the fact that rape laws have been shaped by feminism in a way to make men the only ones capable of raping in an overwhelming majority of sexual encounters -- rape being defined by the likes of the FBI as forced penetration with a penis or object. Or that male rape victims are routinely marginalized in media. Or that the same illegal conduct by a male is "rape" but is only "sexual assualt" when committed by a female. Or the utter disproportionality of punishment for male verse female perpetrators. Or the various "rape shield" laws that allow the accused to be dragged through the mud in the press while "protecting" the accuser, even when the accuser is proven false. Or that women have started to view calling sexual encounters rape as a "get out of trouble free, card.
>Or, the privilege to not be sexually harassed, on the street by strangers, in the office by people you have to see every day, or anywhere else.
Yes, men are never sexual harassed. Neeeeever.
>The privilege to wear clothing that is comfortable and cheap and socially accepted, and to wear that clothing without being judged as having "given up" or being slobbish.
Once again, a non-gendered "privilege"
>There's the privilege to get a job, fellowship, or acceptance to a school without being seen as an "affirmative action" choice who must not be really good enough for whatever position you've obtained.
Having been involved, first hand, on both the applicant and hiring side I've seen the results of forced "equality" in hiring. It rarely increases talent and often harms it.
And on and on...Your list is full of tropes that are half truths or ignore the two-sided nature of things. I'm glad the echo-chamber of self-victimization is working out for you though.
Of the feminists that do hate men, I think most of them do because they have experienced oppression at the hands of men in very direct ways, such as:
* Sexual harassment (probably all of the women you know have been sexually harassed)
* Sexual assault (one in four on average, higher than that for women in the global majority/women of color)
* Overt sexism (being derided as an "affirmative action" placement, told to make sandwiches/get off the Internet, etc.)
* Covert sexism (being assumed to be a subordinate in an office, being assumed to be an assistant/boyfriend at tech conferences, being singled out for "preferential" treatment in a Victorian expression of respect for fragility)
As a man, I think that there are a lot of reasons why women would hate men, and why people of color would hate whites. I think this is mostly justified. Men, and particularly white men, have and continue to do pretty absurdly horrible things, and more than that, refuse to even admit to it! The catcaller on a street doesn't think he's doing something wrong, much less the person who judges a woman more harshly for her efficacy at work (since she seems "cold" if she gets things done).
One of the best defenses of hate I've ever seen is from Butch Slaughter. You can see some of his work here: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Butch%20Slaught...
Mr. Slaughter guest lectured at a class I took on domestic violence, and one of the things he said that will always stick with me is that "there are some things you're supposed to hate." Systemic inequality, and the oppression of the majority of humans, is definitely something you're supposed to hate. And I think it's impossible to wholly separate that from the people who are responsible, either by accident or by choice, in supporting such things.
Copyright should be abolished, and this is a moral issue.
I know you are trolling, but you made it a moral issue not me.
Nothing about creating value and selling it for money requires that I be prohibited in my rights about what I'm allowed to do with digital works, be they considered property or thought. Unfortunately copyright holds us back in this regard and builds an economic environment predicated on this offense.
Picture of statue = copy of software
Public area = internet
$5 per print fee = software license fee
I am not even sure if I fully believe my own analogy, but I find it interesting to think about.
I suspect there are those who would try to get it for free, regardless of how much it costs. It's probably more successful in converting those who wouldn't have paid in the first place - IE by reminding them that they've been "caught out".
Having said that, no homepage mention may be turning away the honest users who might genuinely be unable to afford it. Only offering a discount to those who cheat the system seems to be rewarding deviousness. It feels more honest, to me at least, to "remind" people that there's a student/concessionary fee available, as opposed to revealing it.
Perhaps, instead of explicitly mentioning the Scholarship accounts on the homepage, there could be text along lines of "Struggling to get by and can't afford it? Email us and we'll see what we can do."
You don't understand, it's just business.
Furthermore, the conversion of requiring people to beg via email to explain they're broke is next to zero. People won't do it. They'll take the POLR: fake accounts. Kicking them out also won't help: they can attack the brand and also if they succeed, the service looks like the bad guys. Furthermore, it builds stats by having more accounts registered on the platform. Whether those fake accounts get killed off is up to the business owner. Is padding stats worth the liability and cost of junk accounts?
We're still talking about DistroKid, so it just bought them free PR.
The point is everyone can make more money by taking a calculated gamble on positive ROI giveaways. The unit cost of an app is often pennies. Any concern about mass defection of paid users to unpaid is unlikely if the service is good and shows trying to take the high road. And that adds goodwill valuation to the brand. These intangibles make the service of higher value than a formulaic subscription service that thinks short-term only. It's not quite the same as selling gym memberships. :)
The meta is that when a service is small, keeping CAC low and getting as many users as possible while maintaining cool is hard. The churn between paid, unpaid and closed accounts is also a delicate dance to keep satisficing toward $. Sometimes giving accounts away in exchange for something non-monetary is a way go (real friends or not).
And also, don't forget gangster marketing: http://youtu.be/t73Q3f4YjwQ
It's probably less work for me to send an email explaining why I think I deserve a free account than to tell the system to send emails to five email addresses that route to me, and then do whatever I need to do to validate them.
Entirely true. But it would remove the conflict of offering the scholarship option only to people who cheat, which is the whole point. They can of course continue to also offer it to those who do, just like now.
In my experience, this works until a user hits a moment of hardship or "meh". Then they cancel and find it's easier to reallocate those consumption dollars to something new than reboot the subscription.
I think this is a great practical solution. They are not being rewarded with a free product (they have that already), they are being rewarded with shame and/or understanding.
The shame of being caught out may make them stop stealing. The understanding may encourage them to stick with the product and buy when they do have the money, or recommend it to others. Win / win solutions are rare and beautiful and should not be discarded for spurious moral values.
I think this is the best way to combat hidden "just data-copying" computer crimes - because people think they can't be seen while doing them, they just need to be shown that someone can see and they'll stop. (This should work on all but the small fraction of people who will steal whatever you do - again, see [1]!)
[1] "The honest truth about dishonesty", Dan Ariely http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0007477333
That reminds me of Airbrake.io, whose lowest-cost pricing plan was higher than I wanted to spend on a toy site I made recently. On my phone I can't find the text on their site, but in small print on the pricing page it said something like "or, we have a developer plan, which is free for one site and one user."
It was exactly what I was looking for, and I wish there were more ultra barebones plans available for otherwise-paid services.
To me that means the price is too high, so maybe also let them set their own price?
That's embedded in the definition of a market--sellers get to choose the price, buyers get to choose whether or not to buy.
Lack of negotiation isn't a curiosity, it reduces friction of transactions - see item, point at it, give the money, you're done; which saves effort for both parties.
What about people who can afford but are unwilling to buy luxury items, like Louis Vuitton bags? Should they be able to set their own price?
He's offering it for free (for some users). I was simply suggesting he also allow those users to pick a price and pay him something.
"How much will it cost me? You can upload one song for free."
Add in testimonials, press and word of mouth and prospects can get an indication of how useful DistroKid is likely to be.
When I said chance, I was allowing for lack of followthrough on the part of the artists. When there's a service that can get your material in front of purchasers so cheaply, a huge, huge portion of the responsibility to succeed then relies on you to create a saleable product and then drive some interest.
FWIW, his idea struck me as logical. I might be able to afford something that still doesn't make sense for me to buy, since I don't get eg; $20 of value from it. See econ101. But I'm not sure PWYW would be the solution here.
A professional musician will not think twice about paying $50 for an awesome tab software, but to me, a hobbyist guitar player, paying more than $20 would be a stretch. This has nothing to do with the quality of the product.
The Humble Bundle pricing model has shown that such an approach can be extraordinarily successful, but I'm not sure how well it can be extended to other software products.
"Hi, buddy! We noticed that you created five dummy accounts in order to get access to our referral reward. Thank you for your interest. If $1.66 per month or $0.05 is too much money for you to afford at the moment and it would prevent you from having a roof over your head and feeding yourself but would still like to sell your music and make a living in pursuing your dreams of being paid for your art and work, then you should check out our scholarship account. We believe in our community and are you are a good person that would not like it if people didn't pay you for your work so we are confident you wouldn't do the same to us."
Or is that too much?
I also like the subtle dig, "if you can't afford it." I've certainly pirated things myself. If iTunes asked me, "We noticed you've pirated The Walking Dead. If you can't afford $3, click here to get it for free." By reframing it as charity I might be shamed into purchasing it. :)
That's certainly a novel approach. I would love to hear how it turns out.