pull down to refresh
50 sats \ 1 reply \ @elvismercury 18 Jan \ on: A Lesson in Creativity and Capitalism from Two Zany YouTubers mostly_harmless
It's an interesting tradeoff -- it's always seemed hugely attractive to work at a smallish scale, not get beholden to weird overseers, and do stuff that you cared about intensely. Seems so often things get super perverted when you don't.
The divergence between Logseq and Obsidian is a good example. LS took venture money and has been scrambling to figure out how to get a return; they've been in a giant reboot looking for an architecture friendly to harvesting enterprise dollars. They don't put it that way, of course, but it seems true. Meanwhile Obsidian just keeps shipping. They know who they are and what they're trying to be.
Probably harder not to take the money and try to get giant, though.
Good point showing how this manifests in other fields. Cal seems to think this tradeoff is not as lopsided on newer platforms where creators can have a much closer engagement with their audience.
On certain newer media platforms, however, Furze seems like an archetype rather than an exception. E-mail newsletter writers, podcasters, TikTok influencers, and OnlyFans stars follow similar principles to carve out a good living without the need for endless growth and investment. The fact that these formats rely on the Internet is not coincidental. A key element of their success—their ability to support an intimate connection between creators and a dedicated audience—may be inherently easier to achieve online.
reply