philanthropy

The stochastic superstar economy

PNRJ critique of neoclassical economics, current events, futurism, inequality , , , , , , , , , , , ,

May 17 JDN 246178

Why do I make less money than, say, Mr. Beast (who now has a game show, apparently)?

The proximal answer to this question is obvious: He has a lot more people viewing his content, so he can sell ads that make him enormous amounts of money.

But that still leaves a deeper, more ultimate question unanswered:

Why are so many people interested in that?

Mr. Beast’s first truly viral YouTube videos was literally just him counting, one by one, from 1 to 100,000. He edited the footage to speed it up slightly so that the 40-hour ordeal would fit within a 24-hour video.

This is something that literally anyone could do that literally no one benefits from.

I also can’t imagine it was particularly entertaining to watch! Like, maybe he made it a little more entertaining than you might at first imagine (I don’t know; I have no desire to watch the actual video), but I still can’t imagine it would rate among even the top 100 most interesting things to do with 24 hours—or even the top 100 most interesting things that I could do right now from the comfort of my own home.

Right now you might be thinking I’m bitter about this, but if I am bitter, it is at our economic system as a whole; I harbor no ill will toward Mr. Beast in particular, who is actually something of a philanthropist. What I really am is utterly confused.

I don’t understand why anyone—let alone millions of people—would choose to watch that video. (Though it’s a bit easier to understand if you recognize that most viewers surely did not watch the entire thing.) I don’t understand how a man can make a highly successful career doing stupid stunts on video.

And I’m also quite certain that if I, right now, tried to do some similarly stupid stunt and post it on YouTube, it would get maybe a few dozen hits and nothing more would come of it.

Maybe Mr. Beast has something I don’t: A charm, a charisma, a salesmanship. Maybe he is spectacularly persistent in a way that I really can’t be (one certainly must be that to count to 100,000!). He likely is utterly unfazed by rejection, while I am severely oversensitive to it. So I’m not making the claim that there is nothing about Mr. Beast’s individual characteristics or talents that contributed to his success.

But I think it’s pretty clear at this point that the most important reason for Mr. Beast’s success is in fact no reason at all; his video is just the one that happened to go viral at that particular moment, and he managed to leverage that publicity into making yet more viral videos until he could become a multi-millionaire for doing stupid stunts in front of a webcam.

He is what I propose we call a stochastic superstar.

His success is not driven by talent, or intellect, or expertise; it is driven by luck. A million others have tried to imitate his exact methods and failed, not because they were any worse at it—but because he did it first.

This phenomenon is not entirely new; it certainly can be traced back at least as far as any form of mass media; radio and TV stars were often famous for no other reason that they were famous.

But I think it’s pretty clear that the Internet, and social media in particular, have made it much easier to become a stochastic superstar. Arcane, mysterious algorithms promote some content over other content in ways that hardly anyone—or perhaps literally no one, if LLMs are now involved—fully understands, and thousands of people doing basically the same thing get zero compensation for it, while one becomes rich and famous for no apparent reason.

This is not a healthy way to run an economy.

Yes, it certainly results in creating a lot of content, some of which is genuinely valuable. (Mr. Beast would not be high on my list of that either.) The Internet is an unfathomably grand and diverse place, and if you know where to look you can learn about almost anything in the world; or, you know, you can be fed complete misinformation and come away with fundamental misconceptions. Or you can just watch cat videos, which I’ll admit add some joy to the world, but probably not nearly enough to justify the amount of effort and time spent creating and viewing them.

It’s bad enough that glorifying superstars glorifies risk; but at least superstar athletes are objectively in peak physical condition and are the best players at the games they play. (I still don’t really get why people invest so much in these games, but whatever.) But it isn’t even clear that viral YouTubers are producing the best video content; they are just somehow producing the most successful video content in a way that seems basically orthogonal to actual quality or value for society.

I think this should lead us to a very important question:

Are there other systems we could use to compensate people for content?

What if ad revenue was divided evenly between all contributors to a platform, rather than just those with the highest view rates? Or what if there was some benefit to getting higher views, but there was some sort of mechanism to reduce the income inequality generated this way, like paying higher rates for views when you have fewer total views (e.g. $0.01 per view for the first 1000, $0.009 for the next 10,000, $0.008 for the next 100,000, etc.)? (Are there perverse incentives here, too? Surely. But are they worse than what we have right now?)

What if we didn’t run ads at all, but instead people paid microtransactions to subscribe to content? Patreon already sort of does this (and my Patreon is also an utter failure), but I think the transactions still aren’t micro enough. I want people to pay $0.05 to read an article—because that’s all the ad revenue they would give by reading that article anyway. Nobody should have to pay $5 to read what advertisers only pay $0.05 for. I want you to be able to see the title of a blog post and a brief snippet, and think, “Sure, I’ll pay a nickel to read that.” I don’t want you to have to decide whether you’re willing to commit to subscribing for an entire month for $5.

I would like to believe, at least, that people would be more willing to pay $0.05 to read good journalism and serious intellectual content, rather than a random guy counting to 100,000 for no reason. But even if that’s not true, at least we wouldn’t be so constantly inundated by ads!

Or what if social media platforms were maintained as public infrastructure, not yielding profits to any corporation, and instead of running ads, their hosting costs (which really are not all that high; I pay for my own hosting on this blog, for instance) were covered by tax revenue? Or what if you simply paid a subscription to use the social media site, and it was no longer used to harvest your data and target ads to you?

With an alternative system like one of the above, stochastic superstars would still be able to get famous randomly, and there are benefits (and drawbacks) that come directly from being famous; but maybe at least there would be fewer multi-millionaire YouTuber superstars and more ordinary people who are better able to make ends meet by contributing content.

But who am I kidding? This system works great for the billionaires who run it (who makes the real money off YouTube? Not Mr. Beast—Sundar Pichai.), and our government has shown very little interest in doing anything that would reduce their wealth and power. So, we can expect this, and everything else, to continue to get worse in exactly the way that cyberpunk fiction explicitly warned us it would, and our government continuing to do absolutely nothing about it!

This is fine.

What can we do to make the world a better place?

PNRJ core principles, ethics, public policy , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

JDN 2457475

There are an awful lot of big problems in the world: war, poverty, oppression, disease, terrorism, crime… I could go on for awhile, but I think you get the idea. Solving or even mitigating these huge global problems could improve or even save the lives of millions of people.

But precisely because these problems are so big, they can also make us feel powerless. What can one person, or even a hundred people, do against problems on this scale?

The answer is quite simple: Do your share.

No one person can solve any of these problems—not even someone like Bill Gates, though he for one at least can have a significant impact on poverty and disease because he is so spectacularly mind-bogglingly rich; the Gates Foundation has a huge impact because it has as much wealth as the annual budget of the NIH.

But all of us together can have an enormous impact. This post today is about helping you see just how cheap and easy it would be to end world hunger and cure poverty-related diseases, if we simply got enough people to contribute.

The Against Malaria Foundation releases annual reports for all their regular donors. I recently got a report that my donations personally account for 1/100,000 of their total assets. That’s terrible. The global population is 7 billion people; in the First World alone it’s over 1 billion. I am the 0.01%, at least when it comes to donations to the Against Malaria Foundation.

I’ve given them only $850. Their total assets are only $80 million. They shouldn’t have $80 million—they should have $80 billion. So, please, if you do nothing else as a result of this post, go make a donation to the Against Malaria Foundation. I am entirely serious; if you think you might forget or change your mind, do it right now. Even a dollar would be worth it. If everyone in the First World gave $1, they would get 12 times as much as they currently have.

GiveWell is an excellent source for other places you should donate; they rate charities around the world for their cost-effectiveness in the only way worth doing: Lives saved per dollar donated. They don’t just naively look at what percentage goes to administrative costs; they look at how everything is being spent and how many children have their diseases cured.

Until the end of April, UNICEF is offering an astonishing five times matching funds—meaning that if you donate $10, a full $50 goes to UNICEF projects. I have really mixed feelings about donors that offer matching funds (So what you’re saying is, you won’t give if we don’t?), but when they are being offered, use them.

All those charities are focused on immediate poverty reduction; if you’re looking for somewhere to give that fights Existential Risk, I highly recommend the Union of Concerned Scientists—one of the few Existential Risk organizations that uses evidence-based projections and recognizes that nuclear weapons and climate change are the threats we need to worry about.

And let’s not be too anthropocentrist; there are a lot of other sentient beings on this planet, and Animal Charity Evaluator can help you find which charities will best improve the lives of other animals.

I’ve just listed a whole bunch of ways you can give money—and that probably is the best thing for you to give; your time is probably most efficiently used working in your own profession whatever that may be—but there are other ways you can contribute as well.

One simple but important change you can make, if you haven’t already, is to become vegetarian. Even aside from the horrific treatment of animals in industrial farming, you don’t have to believe that animals deserve rights to understand that meat is murder. Meat production is a larger contributor to global greenhouse gas emissions than transportation, so everyone becoming vegetarian would have a larger impact against climate change than taking literally every car and truck in the world off the road. Since the world population is less than 10 billion, meat is 18% of greenhouse emissions and the IPCC projects that climate change will kill between 10 and 100 million people over the next century, every 500 to 5000 new vegetarians saves a life.

You can move your money from a bank to a credit union, as even the worst credit unions are generally better than the best for-profit banks, and the worst for-profit banks are very, very bad. The actual transition can be fairly inconvenient, but a good credit union will provide you with all the same services, and most credit unions link their networks and have online banking, so for example I can still deposit and withdraw from my University of Michigan Credit Union account while in California.

Another thing you can do is reduce your consumption of sweatshop products in favor of products manufactured under fair labor standards. This is harder than it sounds; it can be very difficult to tell what a company’s true labor conditions are like, as the worst companies work very hard to hide them (now, if they worked half as hard to improve them… it reminds me of how many students seem willing to do twice as much work to cheat as they would to simply learn the material in the first place).

You should not simply stop buying products that say “Made in China”; in fact, this could be counterproductive. We want products to be made in China; we need products to be made in China. What we have to do is improve labor standards in China, so that products made in China are like products made in Japan or Korea—skilled workers with high-paying jobs in high-tech factories. Presumably it doesn’t bother you when something says “Made in Switzerland” or “Made in the UK”, because you know their labor standards are at least as high as our own; that’s where I’d like to get with “Made in China”.

The simplest way to do this is of course to buy Fair Trade products, particularly coffee and chocolate. But most products are not available Fair Trade (there are no Fair Trade computers, and only loose analogues for clothing and shoes).

Moreover, we must not let the perfect be the enemy of the good; companies that have done terrible things in the past may still be the best companies to support, because there are no alternatives that are any better. In order to incentivize improvement, we must buy from the least of all evils for awhile until the new competitive pressure makes non-evil corporations viable. With this in mind, the Fair Labor Association may not be wrong to endorse companies like Adidas and Apple, even though they surely have substantial room to improve. Similarly, few companies on the Ethisphere list are spotless, but they probably are genuinely better than their competitors. (Well, those that have competitors; Hasbro is on there. Name a well-known board game, and odds are it’s made by a Hasbro subsidiary: they own Parker Brothers, Milton Bradley, and Wizards of the Coast. Wikipedia has their own category, Hasbro subsidiaries. Maybe they’ve been trying to tell us something with all those versions of Monopoly?)

I’m not very happy with the current state of labor standards reporting (much less labor standards enforcement), so I don’t want to recommend any of these sources too highly. But if you are considering buying from one of three companies and only one of them is endorsed by the Fair Labor Association, it couldn’t hurt to buy from that one instead of the others.

Buying from ethical companies will generally be more expensive—but rarely prohibitively so, and this is part of how we use price signals to incentivize better behavior. For about a year, BP gasoline was clearly cheaper than other gasoline, because nobody wanted to buy from BP and they were forced to sell at a discount after the Deepwater Horizon disaster. Their profits tanked as a result. That’s the kind of outcome we want—preferably for a longer period of time.

I suppose you could also save money by buying cheaper products and then donate the difference, and in the short run this would actually be most cost-effective for global utility; but (1) nobody really does that; people who buy Fair Trade also tend to donate more, maybe just because they are more generous in general, and (2) in the long run what we actually want is more ethical businesses, not a system where businesses exploit everyone and then we rely upon private charity to compensate us for our exploitation. For similar reasons, philanthropy is a stopgap—and a much-needed one—but not a solution.

Of course, you can vote. And don’t just vote in the big name elections like President of the United States. Your personal impact may actually be larger from voting in legislatures and even local elections and ballot proposals. Certainly your probability of being a deciding vote is far larger, though this is compensated by the smaller effect of the resulting policies. Most US states have a website where you can look up any upcoming ballots you’ll be eligible to vote on, so you can plan out your decisions well in advance.

You may even want to consider running for office at the local level, though I realize this is a very large commitment. But most local officials run uncontested, which means there is no real democracy at work there at all.

Finally, you can contribute in some small way to making the world a better place simply by spreading the word, as I hope I’m doing right now.