No. You’ve missed the mark. There was no monetization strategy for Usenet. It was free, open, and distributed. And it was grand, until too many people came along and started shitting it up.
Every lame attempt to copy Usenet that has come since has ended up in the same place. They’re all find and dandy until too many people come along and start trying to pull it in so many undesirable directions, at which point using the service becomes awful and people move on to the next isolated community that is yet to be shitted up.
No matter what platform you put in front of the people, if they come, they are going to ruin it. A new, unpopulated, platform only buys you time as you wait for its Eternal September moment. It does not solve the actual problem.
I think we’re talking past each other. I’m talking about different problems with social media - not with the users, but the platforms themselves.
Here’s a few examples: Reddit cracking down on third-party apps, platforms requiring you to log in before viewing content, relentless tracking and privacy invasions, TikTok turning into a firehose of ads and sponsored content, and Amazon’s gradual transformation into a sketchy marketplace with systemically faked reviews and false advertising on products. These are less to do with the growth of the platform, and more to do with the pressure from management to extract money from users.
But yeah, I do get your point on how a relentless influx of new users can disrupt an existing community and create severe moderation challenges
I don’t think so. All I see in your examples are symptoms of a critical mass entering a platform and the inevitable tug-of-war that follows when disparate interests start tugging in their own preferred directions, at odds with the preferences of others on the platform. In other words, only a small community is able to maintain a shared set of interests for the platform.
and more to do with the pressure from management to extract money from users.
This is the same thing. If there is a money making opportunity, that can only be if some segment of the community want to give up their money. There was a tug-of-war and somebody won – the segment who want to pay for a certain kind of service, much to the chagrin of everyone else. Again, this is the outcome of a community growing too large and no longer being able to maintain a unified set of interests.
A new platform can buy you time because a new platform starts small and allows a community to establish a shared set of interests, but it is not a solution as once its Eternal September moment takes place someone will start the tug-of-war and shit it up in the process. It is not a technical problem that can be solved by throwing more technology at it. It is ultimately a people problem.
So, bringing us back to the beginning, why keep reinventing the wheel thinking this time will somehow be different? It’s not like we haven’t been here hundreds of times before.
I disagree that users really have any say in the direction of the platform. Users aren’t clambering for ads or for crappy Amazon products, and so I don’t think it’s the competing interests of users that drive these changes. I see it as more of a conflict between users and owners.
Platform begins with small user base
Investors pour in capital to support and encourage the growth of the user base. At this stage the platform runs at a massive loss. This is when times are good for users.
Investors, now with substantial influence, seek a return on investment by encouraging new anti-features on the platform.
Maybe this sounds like the same thing, but there are different solutions. If I understand you right, your solution to this problem is to restrict growth, which could allow for a more unified community that could push back against these changes. I would argue to change the incentives, change the governance model, so that the platform is publicly administered or administered by a non-profit or cooperative that is accountable to users, not shareholders. See how this very website (lemmy.ca) is being incorporated as a non-profit. It’s pretty neat!
Users aren’t clambering for ads or for crappy Amazon products
With respect, is it that you do not understand what money represents? Let me keep it simple: Money is just an IOU. Why would someone give an IOU to provide goods or services at a later point in time? The answer is because they received a good and/or service of equal value now.
Obviously some users are clambering for ads or crappy Amazon products if someone else is receiving money by offering them. If they were not, there would be no money for someone to collect. And those users showing up, with misaligned interests to others in the community, creates a tug-of-war effect. Eventually someone will win.
See how this very website (lemmy.ca) is being incorporated as a non-profit. It’s pretty neat!
Way back in the day I used to use a Usenet host operated by a co-operative. Technically, I was a partial owner of that server by virtue of being a user, which I think is even neater!
Usenet is still out there in operation, I guess, but let’s face it – it is, for all practical purposes, dead. If cunning ownership structures weren’t able to save it, what’s magically different this time? I really don’t see what lemmy.ca is doing that hasn’t already been tried many times before?
I still disagree with you but I don’t think either of us are going to convince each other. I appreciate you sharing your perspective, I wasn’t around back in the Usenet days and it’s cool to hear about it and how you were involved.
I still disagree with you but I don’t think either of us are going to convince each other.
Was there some reason we would want to, or should, convince another? It seems like that would completely defeat the purpose of having a discussion. I don’t quite understand what this is intended to convey.
No. You’ve missed the mark. There was no monetization strategy for Usenet. It was free, open, and distributed. And it was grand, until too many people came along and started shitting it up.
Every lame attempt to copy Usenet that has come since has ended up in the same place. They’re all find and dandy until too many people come along and start trying to pull it in so many undesirable directions, at which point using the service becomes awful and people move on to the next isolated community that is yet to be shitted up.
No matter what platform you put in front of the people, if they come, they are going to ruin it. A new, unpopulated, platform only buys you time as you wait for its Eternal September moment. It does not solve the actual problem.
I think we’re talking past each other. I’m talking about different problems with social media - not with the users, but the platforms themselves.
Here’s a few examples: Reddit cracking down on third-party apps, platforms requiring you to log in before viewing content, relentless tracking and privacy invasions, TikTok turning into a firehose of ads and sponsored content, and Amazon’s gradual transformation into a sketchy marketplace with systemically faked reviews and false advertising on products. These are less to do with the growth of the platform, and more to do with the pressure from management to extract money from users.
But yeah, I do get your point on how a relentless influx of new users can disrupt an existing community and create severe moderation challenges
I don’t think so. All I see in your examples are symptoms of a critical mass entering a platform and the inevitable tug-of-war that follows when disparate interests start tugging in their own preferred directions, at odds with the preferences of others on the platform. In other words, only a small community is able to maintain a shared set of interests for the platform.
This is the same thing. If there is a money making opportunity, that can only be if some segment of the community want to give up their money. There was a tug-of-war and somebody won – the segment who want to pay for a certain kind of service, much to the chagrin of everyone else. Again, this is the outcome of a community growing too large and no longer being able to maintain a unified set of interests.
A new platform can buy you time because a new platform starts small and allows a community to establish a shared set of interests, but it is not a solution as once its Eternal September moment takes place someone will start the tug-of-war and shit it up in the process. It is not a technical problem that can be solved by throwing more technology at it. It is ultimately a people problem.
So, bringing us back to the beginning, why keep reinventing the wheel thinking this time will somehow be different? It’s not like we haven’t been here hundreds of times before.
I disagree that users really have any say in the direction of the platform. Users aren’t clambering for ads or for crappy Amazon products, and so I don’t think it’s the competing interests of users that drive these changes. I see it as more of a conflict between users and owners.
Maybe this sounds like the same thing, but there are different solutions. If I understand you right, your solution to this problem is to restrict growth, which could allow for a more unified community that could push back against these changes. I would argue to change the incentives, change the governance model, so that the platform is publicly administered or administered by a non-profit or cooperative that is accountable to users, not shareholders. See how this very website (lemmy.ca) is being incorporated as a non-profit. It’s pretty neat!
With respect, is it that you do not understand what money represents? Let me keep it simple: Money is just an IOU. Why would someone give an IOU to provide goods or services at a later point in time? The answer is because they received a good and/or service of equal value now.
Obviously some users are clambering for ads or crappy Amazon products if someone else is receiving money by offering them. If they were not, there would be no money for someone to collect. And those users showing up, with misaligned interests to others in the community, creates a tug-of-war effect. Eventually someone will win.
Way back in the day I used to use a Usenet host operated by a co-operative. Technically, I was a partial owner of that server by virtue of being a user, which I think is even neater!
Usenet is still out there in operation, I guess, but let’s face it – it is, for all practical purposes, dead. If cunning ownership structures weren’t able to save it, what’s magically different this time? I really don’t see what lemmy.ca is doing that hasn’t already been tried many times before?
I still disagree with you but I don’t think either of us are going to convince each other. I appreciate you sharing your perspective, I wasn’t around back in the Usenet days and it’s cool to hear about it and how you were involved.
Was there some reason we would want to, or should, convince another? It seems like that would completely defeat the purpose of having a discussion. I don’t quite understand what this is intended to convey.
I was trying to respectfully disengage!
I appreciated the conversation. Other people can be convinced they are not talking to each other privately.
What you’re talking about is called the tragedy of the commons and the eternal September is just one example.