745
reasonable
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 18 Feb 2024
745 points (100.0% liked)
196
17163 readers
1746 users here now
Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
Other rules
Behavior rules:
- No bigotry (transphobia, racism, etc…)
- No genocide denial
- No support for authoritarian behaviour (incl. Tankies)
- No namecalling
- Accounts from lemmygrad.ml, threads.net, or hexbear.net are held to higher standards
- Other things seen as cleary bad
Posting rules:
- No AI generated content (DALL-E etc…)
- No advertisements
- No gore / violence
- Mutual aid posts require verification from the mods first
NSFW: NSFW content is permitted but it must be tagged and have content warnings. Anything that doesn't adhere to this will be removed. Content warnings should be added like: [penis], [explicit description of sex]. Non-sexualized breasts of any gender are not considered inappropriate and therefore do not need to be blurred/tagged.
If you have any questions, feel free to contact us on our matrix channel or email.
Other 196's:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
While I believe that nobody should be able to wield that much wealth in the first place, arguably being a world-famous artist is among the least unethical ways to become rich as long as the artistic work isn't bought from ghostwriters. It takes $10 in net profit from 100m fans to make a billion, and I could easily imagine a sizable crowd of her followers genuinely wanting to give her money like that (whereas, for example, I never would have willingly agreed to give Nestlé's leadership money, even when I used to buy their brands still).
I don't care about her specifically, but from a "owning the fruits of your own labor" perspective, I think it makes sense for the art itself to be a big part of that.