3 ms·
Thing is masses of people make high quality content for free on all these platforms (and elsewhere) it's just next to no one gets to see it. Massive centralizat
by meheleventyone 5y ago
Thing is masses of people make high quality content for free on all these platforms (and elsewhere) it's just next to no one gets to see it. Massive centralization happened because discovery of content is easier for the audience. But discovery of specific content has not gotten any better, if anything in a world curated by algorithm with much greater participation it's got significantly worse.
The main issue is both monetization and distribution/discovery for digital content follow a power law. If you want to make something and have an audience you need to be one of the vanishingly small number of people that "make it". Otherwise you're just facing a massive uphill climb against entrenched people who hold all the cards.
Right now if you want a good chance to get into a space you either need to have big resources behind you or to be one of the first movers into it. If you're some random person even if you make great stuff you stand next to no chance of blowing up because the entire audience is hovered up by the big names. This leads to people burning out en masse and their content being even harder to find.
Basically we need more equitable discovery of quality content rather than just chasing metrics which leads to this entrenchment. And stable career paths for people.
- agumonkey 5y agocentralization also caused a natural pressure to prune all the mild content, it was inefficient (lots of politics and stuff like that) but it made a kind of ladder.. internet creates puddles, anybody can join, so they do and they had little value
- nullc 5y ago> it's just next to no one gets to see it. It's not quite that bad, but our standards of success have changed. If your garage band threw a couple concerts and across them got and attendance of 1000 people that would have been a smashing success. Put your music on youtube and get 1000 listeners and it's a failure.
- meheleventyone 5y agoThat’s because 1000 listeners versus 1000 attendees isn’t really a like for like comparison. Getting people to come and see a band live involves a whole lot more effort on the audiences part. Similarly live performances are worth much more than listening to recorded performances. I actually agree with the 100/1000 true fans essays it’s just the realities of platform capitalism means most creative people capable of such an audience will never be discovered by it.