> Musk discussed the possibility of placing Twitter on the blockchain, though he later appeared to decide such a move would not work.
What does that even mean?
What does that even mean?
if I'm being charitable, it means that Musk looked at the problem, saw that it was a terrible idea and pushed it to one side
If I'm not being charitable, he looked at the idea despite the previous experience of the blockchain being useless for all but a tiny application, and still forced people to debate the idea, despite it being patent bollocks
This includes, I'm ashamed to say, the French government, who has said that finance regulation rules should be eased for all things crypto.
Guessing the lawyers pointed out that this is rather problematic if someone posts something highly illegal (CP or whatever)
Could users pay for their own costs and have an ad-free experience?
Could users give gas to publishers in response to content they enjoy?
There’s room for a lot of economic incentives!
Could users sell 70% of their tweet revenue for 7 years to another entity that gives them cash up front? Like existing music publishers?
The intersection of technology and people to define a usable product cannot also be defined as a technology.
Users regularly do "give gas to publishers in response to content they enjoy", for example on Patreon, Twitch or Medium.
The appetite seems there all right.
As opposed to a patronage model, intellectual property allows for people to engage in the market with their published works.
Intellectual property has lots of problems of course but it is also the model that replaced patronage as we transitioned from the ancien regime into our contemporary politic-economic system.
On the contrary, micro-transactions is the ideal way for regular folks to support content creators in a way that does not take too much from them.
No one struggling wants to pay a platform's minimum support level of $5/month times 20 people whose videos they like. Paying $5/month to 20 people whose videos they like though, that's much easier to handle.
In your idealized theoretical market conditions*, and assuming the tech works currently as I mentioned (it doesn’t in my opinion but that debate has already been had).
You might be right, but not until (another) significant engineering effort is established (unlikely given the state of the economy) and not without the blessing of various nation states.
I would like to see the involvement of nation states to facilitate such a system but the political will for having a truly republican system that expands upon copyright, patents, trademarks, et al, for the digital age seems decades away. People are too worried that their political opponents will abuse such a system when in power, even if such a system is probably inevitable.
Why would I pay for futures on a platform that encourages people to make ill-informed context free pronouncements, with an incredibly short half life?
Is there a lower bound of a market for published works? Are tweets below that bound? Are tweets of video content or photographs below that bound? Perhaps!
Does the current socioeconomic system of Twitter have in impact on ill-informed context free pronouncements? Would a different socioeconomic system encourage different content?
This is more a case of “famous guests on talkshow” than “London’s speakers corner”.
It is marginally easier to get a twitter following. But yoursite + (youtube, facebook, reddit etc.) can build a following too.
FWIW, I deleted my Twitter and Facebook accounts in 2016 and it has felt somewhat like I’m living in the digital wilderness, to the benefit of my mental health! There is still a cost to living up yonder in them hills.
/me a blockchain virgin