4 ms·
>For example, a small group of friends could easily run a social media network for a small town of a few 1-10ks. Why would anyone do this? What's the incentive
by nemothekid 4y ago
>For example, a small group of friends could easily run a social media network for a small town of a few 1-10ks.
Why would anyone do this? What's the incentive? Could someone run a social media network and either (1) do it in their free time or (2) make enough money where they could run in it full time. I'm confident the answer to both questions is no.
In other words, there is an incentive to run large social media networks (ad money) that it makes sense to try and attempt content moderation, but there is no desire to run smaller ones. I would even take offense to calling it cheap; playing social arbiter can easily be time consuming and mentally taxing.
- krapp 4y agoThere is a desire to run smaller ones if you want to maintain quality, or focus on a niche subject, or literally just want people you know or a small circle of friends and associates. It's basically what small forums used to be, and what private discord servers are now.
- plastiquebeech 4y agoSame reason that people run community gardens, or set up trusts to maintain local trails. Because they care. Maybe some things, like human relationships and communication, are better off without a profit motive.
- MichaelZuo 4y agoThere is still a profit motive there, the dictionary definition of profit isn't limited to just monetary profit.
- plastiquebeech 4y agoFair enough. I would still rather have a diverse ecosystem of power-tripping moderators than a few unavoidable ones, though. There would probably be more calm tidal pools like the one that dang cultivates here.
- MichaelZuo 4y agoIf the average community size was smaller, wouldn't the average 'power-tripping moderatos' within each community need to behave more strongly over fewer folks to maintain the same level of satisfaction?
- andrewflnr 4y agoThis is dangerously close to equivocating on "profit motive". "Profit", as actually used, is almost always meant in the strictly monetary sense, not as a synonym with "for a benefit", which is very broad. When the "benefit" becomes "I personally feel good about helping", comparing it to making money is inaccurate at best.
- MichaelZuo 4y agoIt's possible to discuss things according to their dictionary definition.
- andrewflnr 4y agoBut more often it's useless. If you're trying to communicate with someone who's clearly not using the dictionary definition, it's probably only good for detangling their actual usage, aka meta-argument. In this case, certainly, you did not address the substance of their argument with your objection about the definition of "profit". Also, I don't know what dictionary you're looking at. These all seem pretty money-focused to me. https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/profit_1 https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/eng... https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/profit https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/profi... https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/profit https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/profit
- MichaelZuo 4y agoIf you closely inspect a dictionary you can see that there can be multiple meanings for a given word. Visiting your last link for Merriam-Webster, you will see a '1 of 2' and a '2 of 2' beside these distinct meanings.
- andrewflnr 4y agoBut you're going to "well actually" someone's comment based on the second definition when they're using the first, rather than actually communicate. Makes perfect sense.