Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
User-Generated Content Makes Web the New Sweatshop
newsweek.com — Whether they're creating content for sites like YouTube and Wikipedia, viewer-submitted news services like CNN's iReport or videogames like Spore and LittleBigPlanet, today's most valuable employees will most likely never set foot inside the building—or collect a paycheck.
MookiBlaylock- 469 diggs
- digg it
- 2clone, on 06/29/2008, -3/+38Does that mean Mrbabyman works in a sweatshop?
- 2clone, on 06/29/2008, -1/+8 .. doesn't get paid either.. what a sucker.
- epadafunk, on 06/29/2008, -1/+4Yes
- KezG, on 06/29/2008, -1/+5it's funny because it's true, haha.
- bizkit00, on 06/29/2008, -2/+1you think he isn't profiting off of the ability to get your site a hundred thousand hits or more instantly? Some sites are profiting off of it, I'd be surprized if he wasn't getting cut in to some of the deals.
- solid12345, on 06/29/2008, -0/+3By sweatshop you mean parent's basement, yes.
- bowe, on 06/30/2008, -1/+2An infant sweatshop at that!
- stfuitsalex, on 06/29/2008, -3/+4Wait until 4chan hears this....
- DirtPile, on 06/29/2008, -1/+5My web is air conditioned
- hollywoodphony, on 06/29/2008, -1/+28When I write in my blog, I get paid in sunshine and rainbows.
- jnordb, on 06/29/2008, -0/+5What, not in gumdrops and unicorns?
- Hangly, on 06/30/2008, -0/+4Candy mountain, Charlie!
- hollywoodphony, on 06/29/2008, -1/+4Sorry I'm not a rich kid like you.
- jnordb, on 06/29/2008, -0/+5What, not in gumdrops and unicorns?
- MortVent, on 06/29/2008, -6/+2Thing is in systems such as second life the user gets paid for the content they create if they so desire. usually micro payments, though sometimes a couple bucks a shot or more.
- robszol, on 06/29/2008, -3/+33So what if we don't get paid. People put content up because they like creating it, like others viewing it for free, and like using its environment for free. No one is forcing anyone to work in sweatshop conditions. Buried.
- robbiemuffin, on 06/29/2008, -1/+13anyone else feel a little contradictory pang, digging this up?
- Airjuggernaut, on 06/29/2008, -7/+4Stupid Misleading title. I thought this article was going to be about supple mexican kids joining internet lines together for 2 cents a day to allow the American "Daemon" to surf Youtube.
- cubicledrone, on 06/29/2008, -6/+3Business wouldn't have it any other way. If there's one thing big business does well, it is not wanting to pay for what they order. They insist on top quality work, but few managers have the huevos to take the responsibility for actually employing people. Underpaid workers and overcharged customers is what big business calls "the capitalistic free market."
But it's only free for them. It's very expensive for everyone else.- sethorama99, on 06/29/2008, -1/+1Viva la revoluccion!
- jlachesk, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1... Did you read the article? Or just go off on a tirade aimed at the word "sweatshop"?
- OSXpert, on 06/29/2008, -1/+5You can apply to be a Youtube partner and get a percentage of the ad revenues from your videos, provided you meet some of their requirements (A certain number of average views on your videos and appropriate, ORIGINAL content). I think a lot of the sites are exploring sharing the profit with users, but the more people get paid for putting their content online, the more likely they are to spam or game sites like digg. :-/
- benologist, on 06/29/2008, -1/+1People make money spamming digg every day by submitting their sites and shoutspamming their crap to the top.
- wracker92, on 06/29/2008, -1/+5When will our digital Moses come to lead us out of slavery to the promised land?
- dha07030, on 06/29/2008, -2/+5The payment is the enjoyment of creating your own stuff.
- jhuik, on 06/29/2008, -2/+3Yeah, the title is deceiving. I'm a content writer who's been put out of work by content outsourced from India etc. This is about users using Youtube etc for self-promotion - bully for them! I should have know an article from Newsweek would be so far off the mark.
Read the article before you Digg it! - RedGreen1, on 06/29/2008, -2/+3I don't consider sites with socially generated content to be anything near sweatshops. But sites like MechanicalTurk sure approach that level.
- rromanchuk, on 06/29/2008, -1/+5I can't believe I just gave them a page view for that trash. Newsweek needs to read Human Action. (and so does digg)
- TheKorn2, on 06/29/2008, -5/+2I wouldn't call web 2.0 a sweatshop, more like a screw job. Here, you create the content, and we'll make all the money off of it. Thank you, *****-you-very-much next time!
- HonoredMule, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1Content creators are no longer king; they are 'everyman'. This is no longer a world where you can expect a king's ransom for product that fails to surpass an everyman's trite contribution. Just because it's costly to produce doesn't mean it's worth more, or that it was worth producing in the first place.
- TheKorn2, on 06/30/2008, -0/+2I agree with you. However the problem is that "big media" (and many downstream) is/are now accustomed to paying zilch for the 'everyman' contribution, and refuses to pay any more than zilch for anything that has any sort of production values.
In other words, it's devaluing the *entire* market, except for those at the absolute top (i.e. hollywood, or established TV studios).
Case and point is photographers... it's almost impossible to make a living as a photographer these days, because everyone expects you to give away your shots for free. Screw off that the camera that you used cost $3K and the lens another $2K; just give me the pictures for free! (no, *****-you-very-much, ma'am...)
- TheKorn2, on 06/30/2008, -0/+2I agree with you. However the problem is that "big media" (and many downstream) is/are now accustomed to paying zilch for the 'everyman' contribution, and refuses to pay any more than zilch for anything that has any sort of production values.
- HonoredMule, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1Content creators are no longer king; they are 'everyman'. This is no longer a world where you can expect a king's ransom for product that fails to surpass an everyman's trite contribution. Just because it's costly to produce doesn't mean it's worth more, or that it was worth producing in the first place.
- Balthazaar, on 06/29/2008, -2/+0But what is the difference with sites as http://www.stylesinners.com , it is the collaborative intelligence that is working it out
- Totz83, on 06/29/2008, -2/+1Funny how the labour can be considered "open source" but the end product is far from it.
- solid12345, on 06/29/2008, -0/+2It is only open source if I can change your comment
- jdaniel284, on 06/29/2008, -0/+4fta, "Similarly, Sony's struggling Playstation 3 console is expected to get a boost later this year with the release of LittleBigPlanet..."
I quit reading at that point. - Mikhail101, on 06/29/2008, -0/+7Wow thats the stupidest thing i ever read, these people choose to do it because they want to and obviously there not expecting pay, its a passion.
In sweatshops its the only option people resort to for a source of income and toil for days injuring themselves on machinery only to earn money not enough for food.
People should be dumped in third world countries before they make stupid comparisons. - rexprime, on 06/29/2008, -0/+1duh
- sethorama99, on 06/29/2008, -1/+7WTF? Let's trivialize the suffering of actual sweat-shop laborers by comparing them with the likes of Tay Zonday and people making Dickosauruses on Spore. Lo, the suffering of the Namu Namu guy!
- bowe, on 06/30/2008, -0/+3Listen to the rhythm of the chocolate rain, falling on the Numa Numa man. He battles the Star Wars kid and his cunning emissary, Tron guy, not for click-throughs, but for internet fame.
- i38warhawk, on 06/29/2008, -0/+4I think that if you content has value it will speak for itself and you'll eventually find a paying position. Look at Counter Strike, it started as user created content.
- bluebettle, on 06/29/2008, -0/+3I agree with this article completely; last week I told my friend about a book I liked, and yet I didn't get any money from the publishers for marketing the book. I felt just like those workers in China who get their hands deformed buy sewing a football to them.
- CyclonusRIP, on 06/29/2008, -0/+4The whole premise is stupid. People make the content because they enjoy doing so, and like to share it with their friends. Who cares if someone else is making money off of it. Someone else gets paid for giving me a forum to say or do whatever I want. Works for me. A lot better than the alternative of no one getting paid and nothing being published.
- Beeferr, on 06/29/2008, -0/+1Article is meh but I do get sweaty working on mods.
- third_eye, on 06/29/2008, -1/+1Eerr... what the ***** do you guys think Digg is. You guys drum up these stories for their site to make ad revenue off of you guys.
- dilpil1, on 06/30/2008, -0/+3Reminds me of how I was cheated out of $200 last time I had sex.
- bowe, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1You better hope that the content you generated doesn't catch on.
- Hangly, on 06/30/2008, -0/+2That explains SomethingAwful.com.
There you get to pay 10bux for the privilege of contributing content. In return you will be verbally abused by the site administrators and probably banned.
Good times. - jake1986, on 06/30/2008, -0/+2That's an interesting angle and makes for a good read, but this argument lacks substance and is overall silly.
- diggalicus, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1Nice, I need to start up user generated sweat shop.
- exspasticcomics, on 06/30/2008, -0/+2sweatshop? LOL- hardly... if a free, public made service TOTALLY REPLACES you- then how can you claim that they (the public..) are doing YOUR dirty work? the author doesn't understand the difference between the words 'sweatshop' and 'anarchism.'
- Metasquares, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1The difference is that you could always stop if you no longer want to do it. It's a voluntary activity.
- asiantoast, on 06/30/2008, -0/+0there is a site that actually pays you for your content...
www.brink.com
photo, video, editorial... check it out.
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by