3 ms·

And this is the functionality that makes social media sites worth it for the vast majority of people. They are there following people who are there to make mone

And this is the functionality that makes social media sites worth it for the vast majority of people. They are there following people who are there to make money. The vast majority of people involved in social media are primarily or secondarily there because of money. So this move makes sense. And that's why decentralized, federated, or whatever social networks will never gain a large scale (>1 million or so) users. The governments of the world will never allow non-corporations to provide the money transfers necessary for people to "make a living" on such sites. That's not a bad thing, but it does mean tha "alternative" social media really needs to stop chasing these kinds of users.

woodruffw 2y ago
Hm? I thought most people were on social media for, you know, social things: sharing photos, discussions, etc. Sending money is an important social activity, but I can't think of a single time I've wanted to use Twitter (when I used it) to send money -- the circles of activities weren't heavily overlapping. (This has nothing to do with politics or decentralization or anything else.)
- MBCook 2y ago
  “Social” means people, and “media” means videos begging for money. I’m sure this will work out great.
raincole 2y ago
> And that's why decentralized, federated, or whatever social networks will never gain a large scale (>1 million or so) users. The governments of the world will never allow non-corporations to provide the money transfers necessary for people to "make a living" on such sites. Sure, if you ignore the simple fact that Twitter reached > 100M users when it had zero money transfer feature for the end users.
kurito 2y ago
I really don't get this. Why would I want to send money via a social media site, especially twitter in its current state?
- nout 2y ago
  Because you can use actual value to incentivize what you want to see rather than "cheap" likes. At the same time if you provide posts that are valuable to others, then you receive value back. I don't like the exclusive solution that X is building where majority of people will be excluded from participating, but you asked about the "why".
hmmm-i-wonder 2y ago
>And this is the functionality that makes social media sites worth it for the vast majority of people. The feature no major western social media site has had is the one that make it worth it for the majority of users? Seems like an extreme claim without any backing or logic behind it.
greyface- 2y ago
This is what the Nostr people have been saying, and it's also why I've avoided Nostr even as a fairly strong Bitcoin advocate. I don't go to social media to transfer money; I go to social media to freely exchange information with my social peers.
- nout 2y ago
  This is what facebook used to be. You only see your social peers, you don't see any other "famous"/well known people that you don't know personally. This could be done on nostr quite easily, but it's just too tempting to start following the famous personas.
tekno45 2y ago
sounds like you have no friends to connect with if you're there for money.
RiverCrochet 2y ago
I think you're right with what you say about "alternative" social media. > And that's why decentralized, federated, or whatever social networks will never gain a large scale (>1 million or so) users This is fine. If we have 500 decentralized social networks and 2 centralized social networks, it's awesome. The decentralized networks will be harder for people to make money off of, but not impossible. That's also good. You can use the big soulless social networks for moneymaking, then return to the smaller ones for actual genuine social interaction. > The governments of the world will never allow non-corporations to provide the money transfers necessary for people to "make a living" on such sites. Before the Internet, we had money orders. You can still get them and cash them. In the 90's I used to order stuff via mail using money orders. It's riskier, but I'm not sure it's very much more riskier if you are dealing with someone you are following that has a group you are a member of. It is less convenient.
flas9sd 2y ago
centralized services can execute on "give every user a wallet", but federated services and protocols can also add an attribute to piggyback on the addressbook that is inherent to a following/follower relation. Subscriber tiers and encrypted content is harder, but the peer discovery is already there.

woodruffw 2y ago

Hm? I thought most people were on social media for, you know, social things: sharing photos, discussions, etc. Sending money is an important social activity, but I can't think of a single time I've wanted to use Twitter (when I used it) to send money -- the circles of activities weren't heavily overlapping. (This has nothing to do with politics or decentralization or anything else.)

MBCook 2y ago
“Social” means people, and “media” means videos begging for money. I’m sure this will work out great.

raincole 2y ago

> And that's why decentralized, federated, or whatever social networks will never gain a large scale (>1 million or so) users. The governments of the world will never allow non-corporations to provide the money transfers necessary for people to "make a living" on such sites. Sure, if you ignore the simple fact that Twitter reached > 100M users when it had zero money transfer feature for the end users.

kurito 2y ago

I really don't get this. Why would I want to send money via a social media site, especially twitter in its current state?

nout 2y ago
Because you can use actual value to incentivize what you want to see rather than "cheap" likes. At the same time if you provide posts that are valuable to others, then you receive value back. I don't like the exclusive solution that X is building where majority of people will be excluded from participating, but you asked about the "why".

hmmm-i-wonder 2y ago

>And this is the functionality that makes social media sites worth it for the vast majority of people. The feature no major western social media site has had is the one that make it worth it for the majority of users? Seems like an extreme claim without any backing or logic behind it.

greyface- 2y ago

This is what the Nostr people have been saying, and it's also why I've avoided Nostr even as a fairly strong Bitcoin advocate. I don't go to social media to transfer money; I go to social media to freely exchange information with my social peers.

nout 2y ago
This is what facebook used to be. You only see your social peers, you don't see any other "famous"/well known people that you don't know personally. This could be done on nostr quite easily, but it's just too tempting to start following the famous personas.

tekno45 2y ago

sounds like you have no friends to connect with if you're there for money.

RiverCrochet 2y ago

I think you're right with what you say about "alternative" social media. > And that's why decentralized, federated, or whatever social networks will never gain a large scale (>1 million or so) users This is fine. If we have 500 decentralized social networks and 2 centralized social networks, it's awesome. The decentralized networks will be harder for people to make money off of, but not impossible. That's also good. You can use the big soulless social networks for moneymaking, then return to the smaller ones for actual genuine social interaction. > The governments of the world will never allow non-corporations to provide the money transfers necessary for people to "make a living" on such sites. Before the Internet, we had money orders. You can still get them and cash them. In the 90's I used to order stuff via mail using money orders. It's riskier, but I'm not sure it's very much more riskier if you are dealing with someone you are following that has a group you are a member of. It is less convenient.

flas9sd 2y ago

centralized services can execute on "give every user a wallet", but federated services and protocols can also add an attribute to piggyback on the addressbook that is inherent to a following/follower relation. Subscriber tiers and encrypted content is harder, but the peer discovery is already there.