(Replying to PARENT post)
Your counterpoint is a disingenuous strawman.
The opposite of corporate exploitation is not necessarily ‘no exploitation’ but more like a donation or microfinance type model, something where the owner sells directly to a consumer to exploit their production.
Did the creator sell to NYT because it was in line with their moral principles? Or was it more pragmatic due to living in a system where corporate exploitation is explicitly state sanctioned and therefore controls the majority of financial power?
👤gunfighthacksaw🕑3y🔼0🗨️0
(Replying to PARENT post)
Where everyone can make such delightful inventions and not feel compelled by large actors to sell them.
People like creating, inventing, playing, when they are secure and happy. Most people don’t live in that state though.
👤marricks🕑3y🔼0🗨️0
(Replying to PARENT post)
The alternative in a capitalist system is something like the NEA:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Endowment_for_the_Art...
The OP can also lament something without there being an alternative.
👤js2🕑3y🔼0🗨️0
(Replying to PARENT post)
easy microtransactions where the creator could have earned money without the need to sell out to NYT
👤foolinaround🕑3y🔼0🗨️0
(Replying to PARENT post)
So what's the alternative system? One in which creators of delightful projects like Wordle are prevented somehow from making money from their creations? That seems weird and bad.