Selling Your Soul (Part 2): The Attention Economy

This is a good example of the most serious conceptualist error. The sentence above is abstract theory claiming to be history. Now instead of a definition assumed for the purposes of a philosophic argument abstracted from reality, or a piece of economic theory about where property rights should be created or are likely to be observed, you've made a statement ostensibly about what has actually been happening in human societies over the past 9,000 years or so. Oddly enough, this summary of what has happened, which was not actually based on any historical investigation, is completely wrong. Among other things, it leaves out the rule of power seeking or to increase inequality through class conflict, where the creation of property is the tragedy of the commons, and deliberate murder is the kind of tragedy it is. This motif is common enough in "traditional property right" creation that more practically-oriented theorists, like Marx, have considered it the center of the whole show.

However, whereas the value of traditional property is held in its exclusivity, this concept is reversed for attention value since more attention is only generated by allowing access to as many eyeballs as we can attract. Any restrictions in distribution necessarily decreases the number of eyeballs paying attention to our thing, and thus its value.

This statement is not even theoretically correct. A moment's abstract logical consideration will show that many conceivable restrictions on distribution will have no such effect, because distribution has already saturated the relevant attention market, given linguistic, cultural or other background limits on who will be interested, etc.

Even more importantly, when the medium of money is replaced with the medium of attention for the determination of wealth,

A process which does not occur because celebrity attracts money, right?

the dangers of over-commodification become uncontrollable. While much of the focus of this paradox has been directed at the fate of intellectual property in the attention economy, there is no reason that the end game will not affect all property types. This paper will focus on the problem of commodification.

It's not clear whether you are trying to follow a line of argument or making it up as you go along here. Once again, the idea of legal and ethical norms as cultural limitations on the market that respond to commodification is conceptualism pretending to be history: the cultural environment antedates the cash nexus, as Marx is insistent on pointing out.

This is nonsense. Your inexperience of the diversity of real relationships real people have is showing. Your supposed norm against selling sex doesn't exist. No one can and no one does prosecute commercial sex except where operating on a short-term transactional basis not under the protection of corrupt police. Once the transaction leaves the street, the trick hotel or the outcall service and becomes a continuing arrangement, the law necessarily ceases to concern itself with anything other than whether all parties pay taxes.

After the transition into the attention economy when wealth shifts from tangible money to the amorphous attention standard, it will become impossible to enforce most of the controls against commodification we currently have. We cannot regulated sex for attention-wealth because the identity of sex necessitates attention.

This doesn't make any sense to me.

We can no longer enforce labor laws when the adequacy of the compensation becomes the amount/quality of attention the worker receives for the work.

This doesn't ever happen. You've taken an aspect of the zero-marginal-cost economy and hypothesized its transition to the economy of non-zero marginal cost without thinking.

Thus, in the new attention economy, we will necessarily be able to buy, trade, and give up anything we physically can outside of reliance on positive government enforcement, at the complete mercy of the structural implications of the new world. This new economy leaves government with only one blunt tool to work with: Complete prohibition. Shade of gray will be but a thing in the past, an impossible distinction in the future.

This is an absurd conclusion from impossible premises.

No, because not all money is fungible. The payment of a traveler's check for an antique Roman gold solidus comes to mind. "Never" was wrong. In general, money is a medium of exchange. Having said which, you can skip all the rest.

Without severability, what we have is not a transaction between two things, but the performance of one. Regulating the attention received by a piano performance is nonsensical, because the purpose of the piano performance is the audience. On the other hand, regulating ticket sales in terms of number of dollars is a rather simple task for any government. Although the attention-economy transaction is still in a quid pro quo framework (performance for attention), the commodity attention given was physically necessary for the reception of the concert.

You fooled yourself with that argument because you used a "concert" with "seats" in the non-zero marginal cost world. If you had tried it with the bitstream of the video and audio of the concert, it would not have worked.

Similarly, while we can currently regulate prostitution without prohibiting all sex, since the reception of sex necessitates attention, our tool for differentiating commodified sex with non-commodified sex will cease to exist.

The outcome of a weak argument on a false premise.

In an attention economy there will be no more difference between selling and giving. Thus, everything that is sold will have been given and everything given freely sold. In fact, it can be said that all things will necessarily be commodified, and all people (eyeballs) necessarily become commodities; for what else are we but our consciousness?

Or, perhaps, everything will be available freely, and will not be commodified at all. You manage to argue right round everything I've said without actually coming in contact with it. This passage simply assumes it all away

Just circular gibberish, actually, I fear. Conclusions built by not-quite-logical operations on false premises, unchecked because you like working at a level of abstraction high enough that you don't have to ask whether anything you're saying actually fits the facts, any facts, at all. The two standout problems are the literalism of an "attention economy" in the non-zero-marginal cost world of "real" good with only rivalrous uses— which is total nonsense—and the peculiar and utterly unrealistic distinction between "sex" and "commercial sex," which would have seemed strange to Jane Austen, let alone to a 21st century grownup in New York.