3 ms·
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 mon
by 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 agoWell 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 agoI 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 agoCharlie 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 agoReddit 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.