4 ms·

That you would have to pay gas to tweet

by aphroz 4y ago

williamcotton 4y ago
Perhaps advertisers could pay the gas for users? Could users pay for their own costs and have an ad-free experience? Could users give gas to publishers in response to content they enjoy? There’s room for a lot of economic incentives! Could users sell 70% of their tweet revenue for 7 years to another entity that gives them cash up front? Like existing music publishers? https://github.com/williamcotton/openpublish https://github.com/williamcotton/openpublish
- weego 4y ago
  There's is literally zero public appetite for anything that poses any of those questions, let alone attempts to answer them. The intersection of technology and people to define a usable product cannot also be defined as a technology.
  - vntok 4y ago
    Users regularly do "pay for their own costs and have an ad-free experience", for example on Youtube, Netflix or The New York Time (5 million paid subscribers in Q2 2021). Users regularly do "give gas to publishers in response to content they enjoy", for example on Patreon, Twitch or Medium. The appetite seems there all right.
  - williamcotton 4y ago
    There’s a public appetite for all sorts of intellectual property. Popular music is funded by artists who sell parts of their rights to their profits from music and recordings. As opposed to a patronage model, intellectual property allows for people to engage in the market with their published works. Intellectual property has lots of problems of course but it is also the model that replaced patronage as we transitioned from the ancien regime into our contemporary politic-economic system.
- ShamelessC 4y ago
  That all sounds kind of nightmarish. Keep in mind, many live paycheck to paycheck. The prevailing VC-minded attitude that the economy needs market-makers, micro-transactions and “decentralized digital rights management” is just not at all what people need or want currently.
  - vntok 4y ago
    You are in no position to decide what people need or what they should spend their money on. On the contrary, micro-transactions is the ideal way for regular folks to support content creators in a way that does not take too much from them. No one struggling wants to pay a platform's minimum support level of $5/month times 20 people whose videos they like. Paying $5/month to 20 people whose videos they like though, that's much easier to handle.
    - ShamelessC 4y ago
      > On the contrary, micro-transactions is the ideal way for regular folks to support content creators in a way that does not take too much from them. In your idealized theoretical market conditions*, and assuming the tech works currently as I mentioned (it doesn’t in my opinion but that debate has already been had). You might be right, but not until (another) significant engineering effort is established (unlikely given the state of the economy) and not without the blessing of various nation states.
      - williamcotton 4y ago
        One of the reasons that I stopped working on such a system [0] is that I realized that there was no way to bootstrap such a system from scratch. I would like to see the involvement of nation states to facilitate such a system but the political will for having a truly republican system that expands upon copyright, patents, trademarks, et al, for the digital age seems decades away. People are too worried that their political opponents will abuse such a system when in power, even if such a system is probably inevitable. [0] https://github.com/williamcotton/openpublish https://github.com/williamcotton/openpublish
- KaiserPro 4y ago
  Why would I, as a publisher, pay for tweet futures, when I can just scrape them for free? Why would I pay for futures on a platform that encourages people to make ill-informed context free pronouncements, with an incredibly short half life?
  - williamcotton 4y ago
    Why are music publishers paying for future profits from a given work being recorded and distributed on Spotify when people can just go on BitTorrent and get the recording for free? Is there a lower bound of a market for published works? Are tweets below that bound? Are tweets of video content or photographs below that bound? Perhaps! Does the current socioeconomic system of Twitter have in impact on ill-informed context free pronouncements? Would a different socioeconomic system encourage different content?
Beldin 4y ago
Frankly, it isn't weird to pay to access a scarce resource. Now we're paying with our personal details... paying with other means might turn out better for society.
- quickthrower2 4y ago
  But would you spend $10 to say that? Or just register your own domain and say whatever you like forever :-)
  - williamcotton 4y ago
    You can stand in the middle of the wilderness on a soap box distributing pamphlets or you can stand in the town square on a soap box distributing pamphlets.
    - quickthrower2 4y ago
      A new twitter account by joe average is also wilderness. This is more a case of “famous guests on talkshow” than “London’s speakers corner”. It is marginally easier to get a twitter following. But yoursite + (youtube, facebook, reddit etc.) can build a following too.
      - williamcotton 4y ago
        That it is marginally easier shows that a digital town square is some kind of natural monopoly, doesn’t it? FWIW, I deleted my Twitter and Facebook accounts in 2016 and it has felt somewhat like I’m living in the digital wilderness, to the benefit of my mental health! There is still a cost to living up yonder in them hills.
  - birracerveza 4y ago
    No, but I would spend $0.0001 to post a comment, which is what it would cost on basically any other chain that isn't ethereum
denton-scratch 4y ago
This is about Bitcoin, no? Isn't "gas" associated with Ethereum? /me a blockchain virgin
- JetSpiegel 4y ago
  Ponzis all look the same to me.

That you would have to pay gas to tweet

by aphroz 4y ago

That you would have to pay gas to tweet

Perhaps advertisers could pay the gas for users? Could users pay for their own costs and have an ad-free experience? Could users give gas to publishers in response to content they enjoy? There’s room for a lot of economic incentives! Could users sell 70% of their tweet revenue for 7 years to another entity that gives them cash up front? Like existing music publishers? https://github.com/williamcotton/openpublish https://github.com/williamcotton/openpublish

weego 4y ago
There's is literally zero public appetite for anything that poses any of those questions, let alone attempts to answer them. The intersection of technology and people to define a usable product cannot also be defined as a technology.
- vntok 4y ago
  Users regularly do "pay for their own costs and have an ad-free experience", for example on Youtube, Netflix or The New York Time (5 million paid subscribers in Q2 2021). Users regularly do "give gas to publishers in response to content they enjoy", for example on Patreon, Twitch or Medium. The appetite seems there all right.
- williamcotton 4y ago
  There’s a public appetite for all sorts of intellectual property. Popular music is funded by artists who sell parts of their rights to their profits from music and recordings. As opposed to a patronage model, intellectual property allows for people to engage in the market with their published works. Intellectual property has lots of problems of course but it is also the model that replaced patronage as we transitioned from the ancien regime into our contemporary politic-economic system.
ShamelessC 4y ago
That all sounds kind of nightmarish. Keep in mind, many live paycheck to paycheck. The prevailing VC-minded attitude that the economy needs market-makers, micro-transactions and “decentralized digital rights management” is just not at all what people need or want currently.
- vntok 4y ago
  You are in no position to decide what people need or what they should spend their money on. On the contrary, micro-transactions is the ideal way for regular folks to support content creators in a way that does not take too much from them. No one struggling wants to pay a platform's minimum support level of $5/month times 20 people whose videos they like. Paying $5/month to 20 people whose videos they like though, that's much easier to handle.
  - ShamelessC 4y ago
    > On the contrary, micro-transactions is the ideal way for regular folks to support content creators in a way that does not take too much from them. In your idealized theoretical market conditions*, and assuming the tech works currently as I mentioned (it doesn’t in my opinion but that debate has already been had). You might be right, but not until (another) significant engineering effort is established (unlikely given the state of the economy) and not without the blessing of various nation states.
    - williamcotton 4y ago
      One of the reasons that I stopped working on such a system [0] is that I realized that there was no way to bootstrap such a system from scratch. I would like to see the involvement of nation states to facilitate such a system but the political will for having a truly republican system that expands upon copyright, patents, trademarks, et al, for the digital age seems decades away. People are too worried that their political opponents will abuse such a system when in power, even if such a system is probably inevitable. [0] https://github.com/williamcotton/openpublish https://github.com/williamcotton/openpublish
KaiserPro 4y ago
Why would I, as a publisher, pay for tweet futures, when I can just scrape them for free? Why would I pay for futures on a platform that encourages people to make ill-informed context free pronouncements, with an incredibly short half life?
- williamcotton 4y ago
  Why are music publishers paying for future profits from a given work being recorded and distributed on Spotify when people can just go on BitTorrent and get the recording for free? Is there a lower bound of a market for published works? Are tweets below that bound? Are tweets of video content or photographs below that bound? Perhaps! Does the current socioeconomic system of Twitter have in impact on ill-informed context free pronouncements? Would a different socioeconomic system encourage different content?

Beldin 4y ago

Frankly, it isn't weird to pay to access a scarce resource. Now we're paying with our personal details... paying with other means might turn out better for society.

quickthrower2 4y ago
But would you spend $10 to say that? Or just register your own domain and say whatever you like forever :-)
- williamcotton 4y ago
  You can stand in the middle of the wilderness on a soap box distributing pamphlets or you can stand in the town square on a soap box distributing pamphlets.
  - quickthrower2 4y ago
    A new twitter account by joe average is also wilderness. This is more a case of “famous guests on talkshow” than “London’s speakers corner”. It is marginally easier to get a twitter following. But yoursite + (youtube, facebook, reddit etc.) can build a following too.
    - williamcotton 4y ago
      That it is marginally easier shows that a digital town square is some kind of natural monopoly, doesn’t it? FWIW, I deleted my Twitter and Facebook accounts in 2016 and it has felt somewhat like I’m living in the digital wilderness, to the benefit of my mental health! There is still a cost to living up yonder in them hills.
- birracerveza 4y ago
  No, but I would spend $0.0001 to post a comment, which is what it would cost on basically any other chain that isn't ethereum

denton-scratch 4y ago

This is about Bitcoin, no? Isn't "gas" associated with Ethereum? /me a blockchain virgin

JetSpiegel 4y ago
Ponzis all look the same to me.