3 ms·

>Someone like Cory Doctorow would argue that this barrier to unseating established, content-heavy networks would go away if competitors were able to freely and

>Someone like Cory Doctorow would argue that this barrier to unseating established, content-heavy networks would go away if competitors were able to freely and legally build their own interops with TikTok's services. Do you have a link to a specific article where he said that? I'm struggling to understand how that is true. 1. For content networks (YouTube, Netflix, TikTok), video bandwidth is the highest cost and it isn't cheap. Why would anyone effectively pay their competitors for the privilege of hosting their content? That is the number one reason why we don't see competitors to YouTube. 2. >UX, privacy policies, client features, and advertising -- not by holding your friends hostage from you TikTok does compete - they pay for content. They learned the lesson Twitter refused to acknowledge with Vine, the facebook has been dragging its feet trying to adopt, that was invented by YouTube and abused by Netflix. You need to pay for content to bring video creators to your platform. Now, again, if I'm TikTok, why would I pay for creators for content to be shown on a competitors platform. Worse still why would I pay for content that I can no longer accurately measure the reach of, and deal with a 10x worse fraud problem? Simply put, I see no reason why TikTok should be forced to socialize their platform so that third parties can leech of their content and video infrastructure for free. If competitors want to compete they should compete on talent and pay creators, everything else is secondary.

ryukafalz 7y ago
> Do you have a link to a specific article where he said that? I'm struggling to understand how that is true. Sure, here’s one: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/02/gopher-when-adversarial-interoperability-burrowed-under-gatekeepers-fortresses https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/02/gopher-when-adversaria... >Today's tech giants—and both their apologists and their critics—insist that their dominance is the inevitable consequence of "network effects," and so nothing we do will recapture the diversity that once defined the Internet. But adversarial interoperability is judo for network effects.

ryukafalz 7y ago

> Do you have a link to a specific article where he said that? I'm struggling to understand how that is true. Sure, here’s one: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/02/gopher-when-adversarial-interoperability-burrowed-under-gatekeepers-fortresses https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/02/gopher-when-adversaria... >Today's tech giants—and both their apologists and their critics—insist that their dominance is the inevitable consequence of "network effects," and so nothing we do will recapture the diversity that once defined the Internet. But adversarial interoperability is judo for network effects.