Will charging for posts lead to higher social media content quality?
1life.cc
1life.cc
With a pay-to-post model like this you would effectively place a filter on who can join in, and just get another niche social media website, and many people will still want to check Facebook/Twitter/Whatever because all their friends and relatives are still there and can't see why moving to a service where they would have to pay would benefit them.
> By the way, we're looking for embassadors, […]
Well that's ambarrassing.
- If you are poor, maybe you should be searching for work or other betterment of your situation rather than posting on social media? Maybe it should be free to view posts tagged and verified as "Help Wanted"?
- Why are poor people entitled to use a social network just due to their economic status, especially since it seems to be a given that because a social network is a private company, it can deplatform users and remove posts as it sees fit?
- Why does the existence of ad-supported platforms where users are really transacting watching ads for using a service always lead to certain groups of people thinking that they are entitled to that company's services for free? No, you didn't have to pay $1/post to use Facebook but you are paying through data surveillance and ads. The poor person is going to get exploited either way.
- If someone doesn't see value in paying to post on social media, maybe I would like to have a space separate from them.
- What is the real difference between charging companies for allowing you to post ads on their platform and charging users to post content that isn't categorized as ads? Isn't all social media posts in a sense advertisement?
Obviously, it's not literally illegal. But it seems like you're not going to filter just for people who can afford to pay $1/month, but for people who are dumb enough to actually do it. Some rich people have interesting things to say; few (no?) rich people dumb enough to purchase money JPEG avatars do.
But then the community will leave and form a new island.
I might be able to be a good race car driver, but does that entitle me to a free race car? Am I being oppressed because the race track won't buy me a race car?
Consider Hacker News, specifically this submission [0] on "My Story as a Homeless Developer." If HN had a paywall to post, the readers wouldn't be able to learn from the story. Even if the person paid to post, the comment section might also not have included as many offers to support the writer from formerly homeless developers, as these people may not have been on the platform due to a retained habit of frugality.
The comparison to race car driving also isn't equivalent. It comparatively costs a near-negligible amount to allow one more user to create content on a platform, versus providing someone with a race car. Perhaps a comparison to a relatively low-cost sport (swimming, marathon running) would be more apt, though still flawed (for content creation isn't equivalent to a competitive sport).
> content creation isn't equivalent to a competitive sport
Why are scores (likes) kept and displayed then? Why do various platforms let vote count drive their algorithm?
Most would rather have funding for essentials or educational opportunities.
>Why are scores (likes) kept and displayed then? Why do various platforms let vote count drive their algorithm?
There can be competitive elements, but that doesn't contradict the observation that social media posting isn't exactly like swimming or running.
This isn't at all a problem unique to social media. Look at HBO. I don't think anyone at all questions they had higher quality content than Netflix. Nonetheless, they got purchased by a media megaconglomerate with a mandate to produce more content, even at the cost of quality, because that is what it takes to compete with Netflix, because consumers largely prefer quantity over quality, especially when quantity comes at a lower cost.
It isn't that there is no market at all for higher-quality, heavily curated, paid, niche content. It's just a small market. Maybe this site can have a happy existence and provide a good experience for whoever ends up there. But it can't solve the problem of social media polluting the global information landscape because it can't put Facebook out of business.
Why would people want to pay to post when no one is listening? Why would someone respond when it costs money.
Rich people stay rich by not wasting their money. What are people getting for paying to post? Why is the audience listening?
probably because anyone should be entitled to participate in the digital commons and have a social and public life rather than considering that some sort of luxury. Unless we want to go back to the 19th century when we stuffed the peasants into workhouses and treat them like stunted peons with no need for a cultural life.
And that criticism does apply to deplatforming and censorship as well. The privatization of the public sphere is a disaster for any country that considers itself a Republic consisting of active, democratic citizens.
I imagine if they become successful they can look into lowering the public post price depending on a person's region. Let's leave aside how they'll go about determining that, VPNs, and such; that's something for the future.
(Of course, it's not "your" social media account causing damage...)
My suspicion is that a long cool-down timer (e.g. every post takes XX minutes to launch) may be better. Something would probably have to be carved out for following breaking news (e.g. perhaps you get to punt the timer for 12 hours once a month).
On social media. (One of them.) Is that objectively worse than the current tax on the time and attention of the poor that is modern advertising?
Anyone can choose to opt-out, however by charging for opt-in you're putting up barriers for those that don't have the same disposable income.
So to answer your question, yes, it is objectively worse.
By my logic, it will inevitably lead to lower social media quality.
Charging for posts means that every post is in fact an ad.
People generally don't like ads.
I guess it depends on the audience. For example, I run a literary magazine and something that has been noted in publishing forums is that when you charge a reading fee to consider a submission, it can cut down on the number of people shotgunning completely inapposite submissions to any magazine or journal with a free open call.
But that's a targeted audience, people who like contemporary literature.
If they're thinking "Twitter but you have to pay per post" ... I could unfortunately see a race to the bottom where most paid posts are ads or thinly-veiled ads.
Charging per post does seem regressive and stifles conversation among everyone who doesn't have money to burn / doesn't view the post as an investment.
Despite the downsides, there’s not really anything better and more accessible than ads.
If you want to end ads, create a provably correct and robust system to know when a given person is looking at a given thing on a computer.
Once you do that, then the attention directly can be monetized without ads (of course it will be used for ads mainly as that’s the main use case)
People need to get used to their content being worth what it’s really worth: nothing!
Content was only worth stuff when it was scarce.
Ads may be a "better" way for a website owner to to make money, but they do nothing at all to promote quality content, or improve the quality of a platform. It's not as if "knowing what a person is looking at" does either of those things either. I think creating a platform for useful and engaging communities/communication and getting rich by exploiting your userbase are opposing interests and for major social media platforms the only reason they attempt to do the first thing is so that they can do the second.
If money isn’t a motivator then ads aren’t necessary either way. If it is, ads again are really the only way that’s accessible.
Ads to help promote quality content as implemented on most sites.
It's no assumption. Anyone who was around in the early days of the internet saw it happen over and over again with their own eyes. Even now people start internet forums, online groups, and passion projects with zero interest in making money off of it. I couldn't count the number of services I've seen start out that way. Some do reluctantly add ads later on to help cover expenses once the site/service gets too popular too afford (sometimes removing them again the moment it's no longer needed). Some get bought up by other companies who are only interested in making money. Some get abandoned or cave in to larger sites (reddit and facebook groups have killed off most of the small internet forums that used to thrive). Some are still around.
The one thing we can absolutely say about the internet is that people will create content for it and will develop and maintain spaces for others to share that content. In between the ads every social media platform is filled with user generated content for which the creator was uncompensated in anything but internet points, shares, and likes. Reddit's moderators aren't paid to help maintain the communities that make Reddit money. Long before social media people flocked to Geocities, to usenet, and to IRC, and produced massive amounts of content without looking for a buck. Before that they'd dial into a BBS or participate in mailing lists. People want to be heard, to help share their passions, and to hear others.
The internet was first and because it was thriving and growing ads, and then surveillance capitalism, showed up after the fact and infested it.
Even this site we are both engaging on is a glorified ad.
Having gated access will not really slow down the wealthy kid,they won't even register the cost, being dwarfed by club prices and expensive lattes whatnot. So who is really the ones being left out from a paid social service?
People might naively think it'll filter low quality content. I just think online Rotary 2.0
FWIW, I did some thinking about this general problem a while back, and my best idea so far is to make content artificially scarce, by limiting the number of users that can see a given post in a given period.
This has the nice property of not requiring expensive moderation, complex algorithms, or (as is the proposal here) usage charges.
More details here, if interested: https://danielcohen.dev/politics/technology/2021/01/15/socia...
Now imagine some story related to blockchain rises to the top spot.
Does anybody seriously think blockchain fanboyism would be at all thwarted by requiring cryptbros to pay a dollar to remind everyone here that fiat requires a lot of energy, too?
While this might gain us "only" mediocrity, even mediocrity would be a huge step up to the current status quo that vastly overrepresents content that is actively harmful to society, meaning conspiracy theories, right wing propaganda and general fake news. The next step would be having enough professional and human(!) moderators that curate the content further.
Of course these steps would go against the financial interest of the big tech monopolists because the controversial, radical content is what keeps people most engaged. Angry and negative content just generates way more revenue than friendly, positive and fact based one.
Your list seems lopsided.
Thousands of people have senselessly died from a disease for which a vaccine exists that can effectively reduce the risk of such a death. Social media is very responsible for those deaths.
The general problem with downvotes is brigarding. If you post something controversial, ex: "The calling China 'West Taiwan' Meme is offensive" or "COVID-19 Vaccines are great" you risk organized groups sharing "take this person down" posts to find your content and downvote it. They may even go and downvote every post you've ever made on your account to try and punish you for your opinion.
For example on reddit, if you go to the profile of an user and downvote every post, it does not count the downvotes. You would have to open up the post and then downvote. (We could probably also detect if it is a "natural" visit or not) So you can make the process very time consuming at least. Sure there are bots but these can also be detected.
So yes, it can never be fully stopped but on the other hand you can do similar manipulation without downvotes so I feel it is more of an parallel issue. You can still have a group voting each others posts up or straight up buy votes.
I imagine a better solution would be to use something like emojis (e.g. poo vs spam emojis) but to also combine that with the user's emoji history on other posts to determine the meaning of the emoji they've left.
That way the system can differentiate someone that's let's say a radical or part of a group that wish to simply "bring something down" from those that are more legitimate.