2 ms·

The most accurate/charitable interpretation of the content, despite the abysmal title, would be: If users provide content for free, then a platform must allow

by dcow 3y ago

The most accurate/charitable interpretation of the content, despite the abysmal title, would be: If users provide content for free, then a platform must allow users to consume that content freely, as in "as they wish", not "for free". The author supposes that this is a fundamental social contract between users and platforms that needs to exist for platforms to work well. The author does not cite any evidence or examples or really even provide any explanation as to why this must be the case, they simply state it as a fact. Personally I find that, while thought provoking, this thesis is not obvious and needs to be defended. And so I don't find much utility in this short essay other than to state the thesis itself.

com2kid 3y ago
> If users provide content for free, then a platform must allow users to consume that content freely, as in "as they wish", not "for free". The platform is paying me with distribution and letting me take advantage of network effect. Anyone can setup a free blog and post all they want, and make everything available via RSS, but instead people choose to post on Reddit (and on HN!) because Reddit has built a platform that provides additional value vs posting on one's own blog. Platforms need to make $ to stay alive, Reddit's problem is they took VC money for a product that, it turns out, doesn't generate VC returns. Without the need to pay off VCs, Reddit could likely easily become profitable (as they reportedly were in 2019) and everyone involved could become comfortably-but-not-filthy-rich.
deafpolygon 3y ago
The user does not provide content or participate on the platform for free. They get a free account in exchange for doing so, along with allowing their own data to be datamined.
paxys 3y ago
> as in "as they wish", not "for free". What's the distinction between the two? If the site is monetized via ads then providing the content ad-free (via an API or otherwise) automatically makes it "for free".
Zetice 3y ago
The implication here is that, "...or else users won't participate." Which I agree, needs to be justified. You see this kind of talk a lot when power imbalances exist; the person with no power tries to speak on behalf of everyone involved who they think believes as they do, in order to try and stand against the existing power structure. Sometimes it's highly effective (actually appointed or even de-facto leaders of movements/groups), other times it's kind of laughable and presumptuous. Without justification, this is the latter. That said, I bet there probably is justification, if the author bothered to look for it or provide it! I would suspect it's true that users will not make use of a site like Reddit nearly as much if the content isn't then made available for use "as they wish".
pessimizer 3y ago
It's a demand masquerading as an argument.

by dcow 3y ago

com2kid 3y ago

> If users provide content for free, then a platform must allow users to consume that content freely, as in "as they wish", not "for free". The platform is paying me with distribution and letting me take advantage of network effect. Anyone can setup a free blog and post all they want, and make everything available via RSS, but instead people choose to post on Reddit (and on HN!) because Reddit has built a platform that provides additional value vs posting on one's own blog. Platforms need to make $ to stay alive, Reddit's problem is they took VC money for a product that, it turns out, doesn't generate VC returns. Without the need to pay off VCs, Reddit could likely easily become profitable (as they reportedly were in 2019) and everyone involved could become comfortably-but-not-filthy-rich.

deafpolygon 3y ago

The user does not provide content or participate on the platform for free. They get a free account in exchange for doing so, along with allowing their own data to be datamined.

paxys 3y ago

> as in "as they wish", not "for free". What's the distinction between the two? If the site is monetized via ads then providing the content ad-free (via an API or otherwise) automatically makes it "for free".

Zetice 3y ago

The implication here is that, "...or else users won't participate." Which I agree, needs to be justified. You see this kind of talk a lot when power imbalances exist; the person with no power tries to speak on behalf of everyone involved who they think believes as they do, in order to try and stand against the existing power structure. Sometimes it's highly effective (actually appointed or even de-facto leaders of movements/groups), other times it's kind of laughable and presumptuous. Without justification, this is the latter. That said, I bet there probably is justification, if the author bothered to look for it or provide it! I would suspect it's true that users will not make use of a site like Reddit nearly as much if the content isn't then made available for use "as they wish".

pessimizer 3y ago

It's a demand masquerading as an argument.