3 ms·

Just being completely random imagine the internet is now the multiverse. And everything publish on it is an NFT, posts, videos, images, comments. Like the curre

Just being completely random imagine the internet is now the multiverse. And everything publish on it is an NFT, posts, videos, images, comments. Like the current internet but everything has a value. Creating a comment on StackOverflow could get you paid instead of just reputation The NFT concept seems stupid at first, and a 60 million NFT is definitely stupid. But imagine Youtube is the metaverse where videos, or NFTs, are published, and the owners will forever receive royalties from Youtube advert/membership profits. People can upload similar videos, but then there is, for example, music rights violation arbitrated by the site that some or all the profits of the video revert back to the original creator. And generally all free for the consumer. By no means perfect Mining could be people caching, and serving NFT content, through which they could get paid, and preserve internet. Partially replacing web hosting, and preventing censorship. Using your neighbors pcs to speed up video encoding For example the Google News problem with Spain and Australia URLs can be NFTs, and have rules. If a site is referencing a URL and is profiting, a part should go to the URL owner, but if the URL is clicked then a part goes to the site that referenced it https://www.theverge.com/2021/11/3/22761041/google-news-relaunch-spain-payments-publishers-eu-copyright-directive https://www.theverge.com/2021/11/3/22761041/google-news-rela... You might say that people don't like these new concepts, or mining is bad for the environment, but right now we can make them what we want them to be. The internet will evolve somewhere and if we don't think about it, someone else will and we won't like the result! Everything is up for grabs, payment systems, identity authentication, personal data management, web3 economic model, social media, news platforms...

iudqnolq 5y ago
Just ask: How much money do you expect to get? Who currently has that money? Why would they give it to you?
- clippablematt 5y ago
  1) more than I get now 2) ceo of Spotify is worth estimated $5billion maybe start there, shouldn’t that (be it money or ownership in Spotify) be going to the musicians who actually make the content and who get fractions of pennies? 3) they probably don’t want to. But we can just build systems that replace them. It seems to be working so far.
jazzyjackson 5y ago
did you get involved in bitclout? it approaches decentralized social media from this “monetize everything” angle, with one click to mint NFTs from any post. I actually like the micro-tipping and fundraising potential, but honestly the drama just gets cranked up to 11 once people’s financial solvency is tied to randos’ reputations. i’m of the opinion that everything monetization touches dies, tho i’m sure META will be full of content creators getting their royalties as people have no choice but to buy an NFT of any MP3 they want to play in their zuck-sanctioned surveillance-spaces, I still believe in the old cyberspace declarations [0] where government regulations and copyright law are considered quaint anachronisms. [0] https://www.eff.org/cyberspace-independence https://www.eff.org/cyberspace-independence
- guilhas 5y ago
  No I agree with that, when there is money involved things can get poisoned very quickly, but we can develop better reputation systems. And people have jobs, this would be making it easier to earn while enjoying free time. People have been fight the internet advertising economic model for awhile. So there is some monetization dependency already. And we will have to decide where it will pivot next We can't forget forget creativity, intrinsic value and allow dissent. But like I say above not everything will have to be valued, there is separation, you can put content into IPFS without emitting NFTs I think blockchain technology promotes less lock-in, not more. Probably several METAs will appear competing with each other, we just have to choose the one that promotes more freedom and interoperability
8note 5y ago
What's in it for YouTube in this? It operates quite profitably without using blockchain to track ownership of videos and copyrights and who to send ad money to
- guilhas 5y ago
  I was just making an example that like an YT video, an NFT has value for content creators and can be the future of internet Couldn't care less what happens to YouTube, hope something better comes along The trend with this blockchain technologies is that single companies will have less power and control so they probably won't like it much, or will look for workarounds But whatever happens for web3 probably most will have to adopt or stay behind
  - UncleMeat 5y ago
    But that is the key question. Why would something else come along? You need backend resources for transcoding and serving. You need a search system. You need an ad system. And if you get big you need a copyright management system.
    - guilhas 5y ago
      Alternatives come along everyday for varied reasons https://alternativeto.net/software/youtube/ https://alternativeto.net/software/youtube/ Progress just happens now and then, newer people comes to the ecosystem and change things to their liking. And in this case the blockchain invention is to big and disruptive to be ignored Someone is working on a blockchain related system for all the things you said And probably in the future no one will trust a company without some sort of auditable public blockchain ledger
      - UncleMeat 5y ago
        > Alternatives come along everyday for varied reasons But they don't stick. Simply being an alternative is not sufficient to make a service better and very few people care about the fundamental difference between youtube and some website that serves videos that are IPFS references. > And probably in the future no one will trust a company without some sort of auditable public blockchain ledger Why? What undesirable action would youtube take that is prevented by having them reference a blockchain such that you now trust them? The core things that people don't like about youtube are 1. Making videos and channels unavailable on youtube.com 2. The recommendation algorithm 3. Google remembering your browsing history and later serving you ads based on their profile of your interests All of those still exist even if all of the videos are instead IPFS references.
netizen-936824 5y ago
I think this is the exact opposite direction I would like to see things go. We need to remove profit incentives to encourage more free thought. If we have profit incentives in everything, we will see optimization for profits at the expense of everything else, including quality of information.
- guilhas 5y ago
  Completely agree, but you see this is like a 5 billion people driving a non stopping train, and it will go somewhere weather we like it or not, we can only help make it better I don't like SPA, Electron, JavaScript in general, but the internet doesn't care More on your comment, I can see what you say, someone not making a political controversial comment because it would mean losing money. But if we look at YouTube again, actually not every video is worth money, there is a lot of creativity and controversy still, more than before it Every system is not perfect, and at the moment, by being, free a lot of people are not creating, or commenting or dev blog-posting, because they are not get paid for it, and they need to survive, so they have to invest their time on the 9to5, and after are to tired to investigate how can I profit by telling everyone "how did I do X interesting thing project" Open source will probably see a bigger influx of money, there will be less friction to value people time Like the time I just spent writing these comments for free!

iudqnolq 5y ago

Just ask: How much money do you expect to get? Who currently has that money? Why would they give it to you?

clippablematt 5y ago
1) more than I get now 2) ceo of Spotify is worth estimated $5billion maybe start there, shouldn’t that (be it money or ownership in Spotify) be going to the musicians who actually make the content and who get fractions of pennies? 3) they probably don’t want to. But we can just build systems that replace them. It seems to be working so far.

jazzyjackson 5y ago

did you get involved in bitclout? it approaches decentralized social media from this “monetize everything” angle, with one click to mint NFTs from any post. I actually like the micro-tipping and fundraising potential, but honestly the drama just gets cranked up to 11 once people’s financial solvency is tied to randos’ reputations. i’m of the opinion that everything monetization touches dies, tho i’m sure META will be full of content creators getting their royalties as people have no choice but to buy an NFT of any MP3 they want to play in their zuck-sanctioned surveillance-spaces, I still believe in the old cyberspace declarations [0] where government regulations and copyright law are considered quaint anachronisms. [0] https://www.eff.org/cyberspace-independence https://www.eff.org/cyberspace-independence

guilhas 5y ago
No I agree with that, when there is money involved things can get poisoned very quickly, but we can develop better reputation systems. And people have jobs, this would be making it easier to earn while enjoying free time. People have been fight the internet advertising economic model for awhile. So there is some monetization dependency already. And we will have to decide where it will pivot next We can't forget forget creativity, intrinsic value and allow dissent. But like I say above not everything will have to be valued, there is separation, you can put content into IPFS without emitting NFTs I think blockchain technology promotes less lock-in, not more. Probably several METAs will appear competing with each other, we just have to choose the one that promotes more freedom and interoperability

8note 5y ago

What's in it for YouTube in this? It operates quite profitably without using blockchain to track ownership of videos and copyrights and who to send ad money to

guilhas 5y ago
I was just making an example that like an YT video, an NFT has value for content creators and can be the future of internet Couldn't care less what happens to YouTube, hope something better comes along The trend with this blockchain technologies is that single companies will have less power and control so they probably won't like it much, or will look for workarounds But whatever happens for web3 probably most will have to adopt or stay behind
- UncleMeat 5y ago
  But that is the key question. Why would something else come along? You need backend resources for transcoding and serving. You need a search system. You need an ad system. And if you get big you need a copyright management system.
  - guilhas 5y ago
    Alternatives come along everyday for varied reasons https://alternativeto.net/software/youtube/ https://alternativeto.net/software/youtube/ Progress just happens now and then, newer people comes to the ecosystem and change things to their liking. And in this case the blockchain invention is to big and disruptive to be ignored Someone is working on a blockchain related system for all the things you said And probably in the future no one will trust a company without some sort of auditable public blockchain ledger
    - UncleMeat 5y ago
      > Alternatives come along everyday for varied reasons But they don't stick. Simply being an alternative is not sufficient to make a service better and very few people care about the fundamental difference between youtube and some website that serves videos that are IPFS references. > And probably in the future no one will trust a company without some sort of auditable public blockchain ledger Why? What undesirable action would youtube take that is prevented by having them reference a blockchain such that you now trust them? The core things that people don't like about youtube are 1. Making videos and channels unavailable on youtube.com 2. The recommendation algorithm 3. Google remembering your browsing history and later serving you ads based on their profile of your interests All of those still exist even if all of the videos are instead IPFS references.

netizen-936824 5y ago

I think this is the exact opposite direction I would like to see things go. We need to remove profit incentives to encourage more free thought. If we have profit incentives in everything, we will see optimization for profits at the expense of everything else, including quality of information.

guilhas 5y ago
Completely agree, but you see this is like a 5 billion people driving a non stopping train, and it will go somewhere weather we like it or not, we can only help make it better I don't like SPA, Electron, JavaScript in general, but the internet doesn't care More on your comment, I can see what you say, someone not making a political controversial comment because it would mean losing money. But if we look at YouTube again, actually not every video is worth money, there is a lot of creativity and controversy still, more than before it Every system is not perfect, and at the moment, by being, free a lot of people are not creating, or commenting or dev blog-posting, because they are not get paid for it, and they need to survive, so they have to invest their time on the 9to5, and after are to tired to investigate how can I profit by telling everyone "how did I do X interesting thing project" Open source will probably see a bigger influx of money, there will be less friction to value people time Like the time I just spent writing these comments for free!