3 ms·

This is not bad. Most of the destructive power of social media comes from micro targeting and the optimization for engagement(outrage). Both are properties of t

This is not bad. Most of the destructive power of social media comes from micro targeting and the optimization for engagement(outrage). Both are properties of the advertising model. Not necessarily causally linked but they share them.

disgruntledphd2 6y ago
Paid social networks tend to be less useful at the network part, as many people won't pay.
- Nextgrid 6y ago
  Paid social networks don't have to be paid for everyone though. You can offer a basic free tier (with limited amount of tweets per day, limited media uploads and restrictions on commercial content) and use the paid, premium tier to subsidize it.
  - disgruntledphd2 6y ago
    The trouble is that content generation is potentially inversely related to ability to pay (i.e. much content is produced by people with less money and more time). Additionally, the willingness to pay makes a person much more attractive to advertisers, so subscriptions alone tend to be less sustainable (who doesn't like more money?).
    - Nextgrid 6y ago
      > The trouble is that content generation is potentially inversely related to ability to pay Not all content is valuable though. I'd argue that the core value in Twitter lies in the influential people using it and not some random teenagers posting their thoughts. Those people also happen to have enough disposable money to pay for the service no-questions-asked. > he willingness to pay makes a person much more attractive to advertisers However the willingness of people to pay also suggests their time is valuable and their "bullshit tolerance" is lower, thus you might lose them if you annoy them too much with ads or engagement-driving features (and opens a gap for an ad-free competitor to take those users). Furthermore, advertising prices seem to be declining (and online advertising itself feels like a bubble) so an ad-supported platform will over time need to cram more and more ads to sustain its revenue (up to a breaking point where users leave) while a subscription-based based platform doesn't have these problems.

disgruntledphd2 6y ago

Paid social networks tend to be less useful at the network part, as many people won't pay.

Nextgrid 6y ago
Paid social networks don't have to be paid for everyone though. You can offer a basic free tier (with limited amount of tweets per day, limited media uploads and restrictions on commercial content) and use the paid, premium tier to subsidize it.
- disgruntledphd2 6y ago
  The trouble is that content generation is potentially inversely related to ability to pay (i.e. much content is produced by people with less money and more time). Additionally, the willingness to pay makes a person much more attractive to advertisers, so subscriptions alone tend to be less sustainable (who doesn't like more money?).
  - Nextgrid 6y ago
    > The trouble is that content generation is potentially inversely related to ability to pay Not all content is valuable though. I'd argue that the core value in Twitter lies in the influential people using it and not some random teenagers posting their thoughts. Those people also happen to have enough disposable money to pay for the service no-questions-asked. > he willingness to pay makes a person much more attractive to advertisers However the willingness of people to pay also suggests their time is valuable and their "bullshit tolerance" is lower, thus you might lose them if you annoy them too much with ads or engagement-driving features (and opens a gap for an ad-free competitor to take those users). Furthermore, advertising prices seem to be declining (and online advertising itself feels like a bubble) so an ad-supported platform will over time need to cram more and more ads to sustain its revenue (up to a breaking point where users leave) while a subscription-based based platform doesn't have these problems.