2,537 karma · joined December 15, 2010
Not as far as Amazon is concerned.
(Technically, of course, the self-employment tax is the equivalent of the portion of your payroll taxes that your employer pays on your behalf, which don't appear on your paystub. In practice, of course, your employer factors these taxes into your total compensation, and they affect what kind of salary they offer you, so it's silly to argue that you're not the one paying them in the long run. But the reality is that you pay more taxes on $50,000 of freelance income than you pay on $50,000 of salary.)
That said, I fully agree with nesbot above: if you made me give up one of my gadgets, it'd be the iPad, no question. But since nobody's making me give up any of my gadgets, I'm not too worried.
Overall, what everyone is telling you (here and in the comments on your blog post) is that putting links and/or endorsements on a social networking service is much more than just a fee-for-service proposition; there are other intangible qualities that are important, primary among them what your friends on these social networking services think of you. You want to believe that your friends post links to things because they're good, not because they're getting a discount. In fact I'd argue that one of the main reasons people like social media in the first place is that it's a person-to-person interaction that's not commerical in nature.
"...all you are doing is calling a company that we provide the number for, pressing the correct (1) or (2) – which we specify..."
If I'm interpreting that right, they're using inside information to get him up the phone tree to the right person (whatever their definition of "right" is).
Hmm, but I think it's the local stations that make money on retransmission fees, not the networks. Though this is complicated by the fact that local stations are in some markets (though by no means all of them) owned by the networks.
"What News Corp. did, guess pin codes, spoofing voicemails, that is amateur script kiddie stuff."
Is itself kind of interesting, as there's no use of computer scripting languages at all here. He's using "script kiddie" to mean not "someone who uses pre-written scripts to break into computer systems and then boasts of their skills" but rather "someone whose skills I don't respect."
It's also not extensible at all, which is a big problem for software engineering. An evolutionarily derived codebase might do really well at the problem that provided the parameters for its initial evolution, but trying to get it to do something else might be difficult or impossible. I suppose you could use more evolutionary iterations to get it to do something else, but maybe it'd be easier to start from scratch at that point?