3 ms·

The problem with modern capitalism is that it doesn't actually incentivise the production of value, but of monetization. News, _especially_ investigative journa

The problem with modern capitalism is that it doesn't actually incentivise the production of value, but of monetization. News, _especially_ investigative journalism, produces value but is hard to have a moat around and monetise (this is true too of basic science). Whereas Twitter or Facebook or Reddit really don't provide much that a rival couldn't except for that fact that they already exist and people use them and the network effect is near insurmountable (Threads is not a counter argument), but because of that they are better at monetising. Solving this fundamental commons issue is what is needed because otherwise all the effort will be spent hunting for walled gardens and not actually producing value.

sokoloff 3y ago
Are Twitter and Reddit actually good at monetizing? Both have utility, but I don't think of either as particularly successful on the financial aspect of their businesses.
- FollowingTheDao 3y ago
  They were looking good for monetizing, until the users, the ones who make the platforms valuable, screwed it up for them.
afavour 3y ago
I've always assumed that's why NYT has spent a ton of money building out its cooking and gaming verticals (including buying Wordle). They can basically subsidize the news operation/the bundle can bring in more readers than news would alone. FWIW this isn't a modern phenomenon: until the internet came along hard news was heavily subsidized by classified ads.
no_wizard 3y ago
How is Threads not a counter argument? Its clearly a counter argument. Twitter has shown great weakness, and something good is coming in, with the marketing muscle and thoughtful support of certain features that are well positioned, breaking Twitters moat. I suspect if Twitter wasn't perceived as going "down hill" in the first place, Threads wouldn't exist.
- Pet_Ant 3y ago
  Threads is not a counter-argument because it's only working because it has Meta/FaceBook/Instagram and their existing network backing. It's not an unknown player simply offering a better mousetrap.

sokoloff 3y ago

Are Twitter and Reddit actually good at monetizing? Both have utility, but I don't think of either as particularly successful on the financial aspect of their businesses.

FollowingTheDao 3y ago
They were looking good for monetizing, until the users, the ones who make the platforms valuable, screwed it up for them.

afavour 3y ago

I've always assumed that's why NYT has spent a ton of money building out its cooking and gaming verticals (including buying Wordle). They can basically subsidize the news operation/the bundle can bring in more readers than news would alone. FWIW this isn't a modern phenomenon: until the internet came along hard news was heavily subsidized by classified ads.

no_wizard 3y ago

How is Threads not a counter argument? Its clearly a counter argument. Twitter has shown great weakness, and something good is coming in, with the marketing muscle and thoughtful support of certain features that are well positioned, breaking Twitters moat. I suspect if Twitter wasn't perceived as going "down hill" in the first place, Threads wouldn't exist.

Pet_Ant 3y ago
Threads is not a counter-argument because it's only working because it has Meta/FaceBook/Instagram and their existing network backing. It's not an unknown player simply offering a better mousetrap.