Interesting critique of NFTs and crypto: https://everestpipkin.medium.com/but-the-environmental-issues-with-cryptoart-1128ef72e6a3
NFT stands for non-fungible token. If I decide to sell you the "original" (digital) recording that I make, this token says you own it even if there are a bajillion copies circulating.
Of, if I decide to sell you the "original" of somebody else's work that I have no right to . . . this token is still minted and exists, because who the fuck cares about creators? This is an investment vehicle.
Counterpoint: Buying things to hold them in a vault is bad actually.....
Also, if the original is a digital file something something Walter Benjamin something something
@celesteh Like with many new things, it's the mental models that hold us back.
Of course, while it's the wild west everything is terrible. And, like you, I'm a bit afraid of a capitalist dystopia.
But, on the other hand, NFTs potentially lead to a situation where the artist gets an automatic share of the profits every time their work is traded.
(I was going to write a ranty anti-NFT blog post, but the more I've discovered the more I'm willing to withhold judgement)
We could just write a law that says that artists get a share of auctions. The auction houses are in London and New York. The possibility for democracy exists in those places.
Meanwhile, if I issue an NFT, that's more carbon that I would otherwise use in a decade. Why would I boil the oceans rather than amend the law?
Law is also law and actual law doesn't materially harm people who live in coastal areas. Code on the other hand can be made in a way that will literally destroy people's homes and/or kill them.
@celesteh If you think that the law doesn't kill people then you haven't been paying attention.
Anyway, we're off topic from NFTs and I'm running a workshop ;)
Fosstodon is an English speaking Mastodon instance that is open to anyone who is interested in technology; particularly free & open source software.