Mark Atwood (fallenpegasus) wrote,
Mark Atwood

Response to "Regulating Distributed Work (Part Three: Why It’s a Good Idea)"

I just saw this article Regulating Distributed Work (Part Three: Why It’s a Good Idea), and after reading it, I posted the following comment (currently awaiting moderation)

You say you “would rather risk crowdsourcing growing slower, or only in certain circumstances, or not at all for a while, than deal with the alternative.”

However, I seem to not have the same fear of this nebulous “alternative” that you do.

Any negatives of this “alternative” seem to mostly be the fears of politicians desiring defined interest groups that can contribute votes and contributions, regulators seeking expansion of their authority, and other “stakeholders”, which appear to mostly be the shrouded voices of people who fear that their position, influence, wealth, and stability are threatened by the changes in the status quo.

And more importantly, the intelligent and energetic very poor people who’s lives are being bettered far far more they they ever would or could ever be by your impulse to be an “organizer” do not seem to be one the “stakeholders” of which you desire to champion, because flatly you want to tell them “all this money that you are making now, we need to slow it down, and slow it’s growth, while we wise and enlightened and smarter and richer than you people get a handle on how to control it”.

You seem also overly concerned with Americans, and not at all concerned with the people who utterly depend on this growing stream of money for their eat-or-die livelihoods.

Color me unimpressed with your “good intentions”.

This entry was originally posted at Please comment there using OpenID.

  • Post a new comment


    Comments allowed for friends only

    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded