4 ms·

Shouldn't payment processors, and sites like patreon that hang off them, which ONLY bow to the law, and nothing but the law, be a huge, un(der)served niche righ

Shouldn't payment processors, and sites like patreon that hang off them, which ONLY bow to the law, and nothing but the law, be a huge, un(der)served niche right now, steadily becoming bigger? It'll be $next_year soon, there needs to be better than e.g. this, which was in the suggested videos sidebar: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hv7hvZee-PQ&t=8m07s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hv7hvZee-PQ&t=8m07s

dragonwriter 8y ago
> Shouldn't payment processors, and sites like patreon that hang off them, which ONLY bow to the law, and nothing but the law, be a huge, un(der)served niche right now, steadily becoming bigger? No, it's not a niche at all. Payment processor and patronage sites are markets, and to the extent incumbents in those markets exclude certain distinct submarkets, there is a niche serving the unserved submarkets. But serving all submarkets allowed by law isn't a niche, and overlaps significantly with what th incumbents serve.
- PavlovsCat 8y ago
  Then replace niche with untapped potential, something that's needed, dozens of other ways to say the same thing? For example, we could use "niche": > A situation or activity specially suited to a person's interests, abilities, or nature but I just realized that wouldn't fit at all. But you get the idea of what I meant when I said niche, right? I see people wanting to throw money at other people, and they will find a way, either way. Not providing them a way before they make their own is "leaving money on the table", if you will.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    I'm not taking issue with the word niche, I'm saying it's not a market, niche, whatever that there is a economic incentive to fill. The gap is serving those unserved by the incumbents.
    - PavlovsCat 8y ago
      So there is a gap, there are unserved people (with unspent money), but there is no niche, no market and no economic incentive.
      - dragonwriter 8y ago
        No, again, I'm saying the gap/niche/market/whatever is the specific unserved groups, not unconditional service. Which is why even when people try to exploit a perceived gap by pitching unconditional service, all it does is become a service for the specific groups excluded by the current incumbents. Let's say the incumbents cut out virulent racists, for example: then their is a open niche for service to virulent racists. There's not for unconditional service, because, but for (in this hypothetical) except for virulent racists, there's no one left unserved by the existing, albeit potentially conditional, service.
        PavlovsCat 8y ago
        A catchall email in practice receives mails for the specific usernames that are in the specific mails it gets, but saying "it serves * minus the accounts that exist" is much simpler. After it was already made that simple, why make it complicated again? > Let's say the incumbents cut out virulent racists So what are you driving at? Just some racists, now and from here on out, so no loss? And what's a "virulent racist", a racist that makes other people racist by mere contact? If that word means nothing, why was it added? Why was that example chosen over Naomi Wu, for example? By definition, services that play these games cut out anyone who does not want to empower such arbitrarily acting and unaccountable gatekeepers. That's what the law is for, for actual society. Silicon Valley is clearly not up to the task, these virtual kingdoms are demented, that stuff should be for video games and private forums, not platforms that speak of community or society. They want to receive from society, but not fulfill their duties to society. Free speech is not an optional luxury, and mobs out to destroy livelihoods and doing their virtual lynch justice stuff are not benign. People who on average can't deal with people that well, even on a small scale and face to face, cannot be in charge of large systems that affect the social lives and livelihoods of massive amounts of people. It's not just a trainwreck, it was kinda predictable.

dragonwriter 8y ago

> Shouldn't payment processors, and sites like patreon that hang off them, which ONLY bow to the law, and nothing but the law, be a huge, un(der)served niche right now, steadily becoming bigger? No, it's not a niche at all. Payment processor and patronage sites are markets, and to the extent incumbents in those markets exclude certain distinct submarkets, there is a niche serving the unserved submarkets. But serving all submarkets allowed by law isn't a niche, and overlaps significantly with what th incumbents serve.

PavlovsCat 8y ago
Then replace niche with untapped potential, something that's needed, dozens of other ways to say the same thing? For example, we could use "niche": > A situation or activity specially suited to a person's interests, abilities, or nature but I just realized that wouldn't fit at all. But you get the idea of what I meant when I said niche, right? I see people wanting to throw money at other people, and they will find a way, either way. Not providing them a way before they make their own is "leaving money on the table", if you will.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  I'm not taking issue with the word niche, I'm saying it's not a market, niche, whatever that there is a economic incentive to fill. The gap is serving those unserved by the incumbents.
  - PavlovsCat 8y ago
    So there is a gap, there are unserved people (with unspent money), but there is no niche, no market and no economic incentive.
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      No, again, I'm saying the gap/niche/market/whatever is the specific unserved groups, not unconditional service. Which is why even when people try to exploit a perceived gap by pitching unconditional service, all it does is become a service for the specific groups excluded by the current incumbents. Let's say the incumbents cut out virulent racists, for example: then their is a open niche for service to virulent racists. There's not for unconditional service, because, but for (in this hypothetical) except for virulent racists, there's no one left unserved by the existing, albeit potentially conditional, service.
      - PavlovsCat 8y ago
        A catchall email in practice receives mails for the specific usernames that are in the specific mails it gets, but saying "it serves * minus the accounts that exist" is much simpler. After it was already made that simple, why make it complicated again? > Let's say the incumbents cut out virulent racists So what are you driving at? Just some racists, now and from here on out, so no loss? And what's a "virulent racist", a racist that makes other people racist by mere contact? If that word means nothing, why was it added? Why was that example chosen over Naomi Wu, for example? By definition, services that play these games cut out anyone who does not want to empower such arbitrarily acting and unaccountable gatekeepers. That's what the law is for, for actual society. Silicon Valley is clearly not up to the task, these virtual kingdoms are demented, that stuff should be for video games and private forums, not platforms that speak of community or society. They want to receive from society, but not fulfill their duties to society. Free speech is not an optional luxury, and mobs out to destroy livelihoods and doing their virtual lynch justice stuff are not benign. People who on average can't deal with people that well, even on a small scale and face to face, cannot be in charge of large systems that affect the social lives and livelihoods of massive amounts of people. It's not just a trainwreck, it was kinda predictable.