8 ms·

How on earth did people ever post quality content on the internet without it being monetized? /sarcasm Would this new feature would reward users any more than

by udia 6y ago

How on earth did people ever post quality content on the internet without it being monetized? /sarcasm Would this new feature would reward users any more than the existing karma/gilding mechanism? I am skeptical that the typical Reddit user would have even have a cryptocurrency wallet.

lftherios 6y ago
the reddit mobile app now comes with one.
Spivak 6y ago
Nobody has the secret to maintaining quality content and discussion at scale though. It’s the reason why the good content on Reddit is in super niche communities that have a high buy-in or some mechanism to maintain natural exclusivity. It’s the reason that the common advice on Reddit is to not even look at the default subs and to avoid posting your favorite subs in popular threads. It’s the reason that there’s so many migrations in the internet because every site’s content is constantly going downhill as it grows. It’s the reason that the comment section on small YouTube channels is amazing but “YouTube comments” are a meme for being vile. Kudos to Reddit for trying something novel here. I’m sure it will fail but it’s noble in the attempt. Having to work or pay to be part of good communities might be enough to keep them from eventually turning them south.
- thinkmassive 6y ago
  I wonder if using an ERC-20 token increases the chances of being able to migrate reputation to another site. That was supposed to be one of the appeals of using non-fungible tokens (NFTs, like ERC-721) for e.g. collectible card games and other in-game items. I suspect there are gatekeepers, and this is decentralization theater, but I hope I’m wrong.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - ardy42 6y ago
    > I wonder if using an ERC-20 token increases the chances of being able to migrate reputation to another site. If it can be migrated, it's not really reputation. Reputation is not an e-points score.
    - Karunamon 6y ago
      That depends mostly on whatever method is used to increment the reputation counter. If you disallow the "account" balance to go up from anything other than on-site activities or a one-time transfer, a lot of the abuse cases are mitigated. Say HN comes out with a coin, and they accept reddit coins as a form of account linking. If I can only do this process a single time, my identity hasn't gained any reputation illegitimately.
      - ardy42 6y ago
        > That depends mostly on whatever method is used to increment the reputation counter. If you disallow the "account" balance to go up from anything other than on-site activities or a one-time transfer, a lot of the abuse cases are mitigated. You misunderstood me. A "reputation counter" co-opts the word "reputation" to refer e-points, which is something that's entirely different. But the fact that the terminology is misleading doesn't mean e-points have any actual relation to reputation, properly understood. E-points are a broken system that you get when you try cheaply quantify something that is nearly unquantifiable (hammer, meet screw). Calling e-points "reputation" is what you do when you want to pretend your system does something it actually doesn't, or when you're too confused to know the difference.
api 6y ago
From what I've seen monetization is usually associated with a sharp drop in content quality, at least for open platforms. The platform usually assumes that monetization will cause market forces to drive the production of quality content. What usually ends up happening is that it drives the production of addictive content. That means repetitive, catchy, click bait, sensationalism, hate/fear porn, and trolling. The very worst sorts of content are what drives engagement. YouTube is the best example. It used to contain a good amount of quality content. Then they threw the monetization switch. There is still good content, but it's diamonds buried in an increasingly vast pile of shit.
- mjburgess 6y ago
  Well in the YT case it seems that you're relying on content creators passion for creation to substitute for paid labour. There's an argument to say a system built on such a premise is exploitative. Either way, I don't really have a strong intuition for how incentives will work here. At the very least, a barrier-to-posting will filter out some bad actors and some good actors.
  - api 6y ago
    I agree there too. I have long criticized Medium as a magazine with unpaid writers. I was specifically speaking to the quality question, not to the other aspects of the platform and its economics and ethics.
- castlecrasher2 6y ago
  Charlie Munger's quote "Show me the incentive and I'll show you the outcome" comes to mind. If money is the incentive, it will attract a different kind of content and audience than without monetization.
- heavyset_go 6y ago
  Reddit doesn't care about community quality, only about ad impressions and engagement. The faster they can become more of a clickbait factory, the better it is for their bottom line.

by udia 6y ago

lftherios 6y ago

the reddit mobile app now comes with one.

Spivak 6y ago

Nobody has the secret to maintaining quality content and discussion at scale though. It’s the reason why the good content on Reddit is in super niche communities that have a high buy-in or some mechanism to maintain natural exclusivity. It’s the reason that the common advice on Reddit is to not even look at the default subs and to avoid posting your favorite subs in popular threads. It’s the reason that there’s so many migrations in the internet because every site’s content is constantly going downhill as it grows. It’s the reason that the comment section on small YouTube channels is amazing but “YouTube comments” are a meme for being vile. Kudos to Reddit for trying something novel here. I’m sure it will fail but it’s noble in the attempt. Having to work or pay to be part of good communities might be enough to keep them from eventually turning them south.

thinkmassive 6y ago
I wonder if using an ERC-20 token increases the chances of being able to migrate reputation to another site. That was supposed to be one of the appeals of using non-fungible tokens (NFTs, like ERC-721) for e.g. collectible card games and other in-game items. I suspect there are gatekeepers, and this is decentralization theater, but I hope I’m wrong.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- ardy42 6y ago
  > I wonder if using an ERC-20 token increases the chances of being able to migrate reputation to another site. If it can be migrated, it's not really reputation. Reputation is not an e-points score.
  - Karunamon 6y ago
    That depends mostly on whatever method is used to increment the reputation counter. If you disallow the "account" balance to go up from anything other than on-site activities or a one-time transfer, a lot of the abuse cases are mitigated. Say HN comes out with a coin, and they accept reddit coins as a form of account linking. If I can only do this process a single time, my identity hasn't gained any reputation illegitimately.
    - ardy42 6y ago
      > That depends mostly on whatever method is used to increment the reputation counter. If you disallow the "account" balance to go up from anything other than on-site activities or a one-time transfer, a lot of the abuse cases are mitigated. You misunderstood me. A "reputation counter" co-opts the word "reputation" to refer e-points, which is something that's entirely different. But the fact that the terminology is misleading doesn't mean e-points have any actual relation to reputation, properly understood. E-points are a broken system that you get when you try cheaply quantify something that is nearly unquantifiable (hammer, meet screw). Calling e-points "reputation" is what you do when you want to pretend your system does something it actually doesn't, or when you're too confused to know the difference.

api 6y ago

From what I've seen monetization is usually associated with a sharp drop in content quality, at least for open platforms. The platform usually assumes that monetization will cause market forces to drive the production of quality content. What usually ends up happening is that it drives the production of addictive content. That means repetitive, catchy, click bait, sensationalism, hate/fear porn, and trolling. The very worst sorts of content are what drives engagement. YouTube is the best example. It used to contain a good amount of quality content. Then they threw the monetization switch. There is still good content, but it's diamonds buried in an increasingly vast pile of shit.

mjburgess 6y ago
Well in the YT case it seems that you're relying on content creators passion for creation to substitute for paid labour. There's an argument to say a system built on such a premise is exploitative. Either way, I don't really have a strong intuition for how incentives will work here. At the very least, a barrier-to-posting will filter out some bad actors and some good actors.
- api 6y ago
  I agree there too. I have long criticized Medium as a magazine with unpaid writers. I was specifically speaking to the quality question, not to the other aspects of the platform and its economics and ethics.
castlecrasher2 6y ago
Charlie Munger's quote "Show me the incentive and I'll show you the outcome" comes to mind. If money is the incentive, it will attract a different kind of content and audience than without monetization.
heavyset_go 6y ago
Reddit doesn't care about community quality, only about ad impressions and engagement. The faster they can become more of a clickbait factory, the better it is for their bottom line.