Twitter first rode this trend, but TikTok really exploited it specifically with the medium of video and their algorithm to serve content.
Networks effects were once seen as the ultimate moat and one reason why FB could never be taken down. But it turns out if the content people “trade” on their “marketplace” is poor, all the network effects in the world won’t save you.
Influencers (aka personalities) are only entertaining for a short period of time. They have constantly churn out new content to keep engaging users. It is because user don’t know them and are less attached.
Therefore as long as TikTok has influencers that can continue to make new content, it will keep attracting new users. But I suspect that this is also not long term sustainable. People, both influencers and users, will get burned out eventually.
Your argument that network model dies because of broadcast model is just one part. My argument still stands that eventually people will get tired of a social media product and move on to the next ones.
Not sure how my observations are lazy though considering your does not provide anymore insight that others didn’t already know… it’s already been reported on Rolling Stone, Venture Beat, etc back in July. Aren’t you just regurgitating their idea with offhand keywords?
Agreed re broadcast model - that's an important distinction too vs the classic follower model. This is why, despite my best efforts, I still see content from strangers on my twitter feed. They know it drives engagement.
> People, both influencers and users, will get burned out eventually.
I disagree - because the space here is endless. Influencers will churn out and users will move on to the next one. I don't think users will get burned out - their tastes will evolve. Each phase of life has its own content pool. I'll describe my own journey here: I got married this past year. In the lead up to that, there were tons of wedding planning videos. Now I get served a lot of married couple w/no kids content. That'll probably keep changing as I move through life.
This is an interesting observation. You are arguing that your taste for content will change preventing you from getting tired of the product.
My argument is more along the lines of the medium. People get bored of photos because it’s old and so they move on to short videos.
Both are non-conflicting. I do see how your argument will prolong the lifecycle of the product.
The situation is quite different in open source world. The only factors that matter for an open source platform are having enough people who are willing to develop it, run servers, and post content. Once the platform reaches enough users to be sustainable then it can exist indefinitely without need for growth or any significant funding.
We can look at Mastodon as a case study. It builds on top of all the work done by GNU Social and the OStatus protocol. GNU Social languished in obscurity for many years, but Mastodon was able to build on this work and create a much larger social network. Now, there's a whole federation of different platforms using ActivityPub protocol that grew out of OStatus. Fediverse will likely outlive every single commercial social media platform in existence today.
Some categories of brands can be long lived. Coca Cola and Disney.
Some categories of brands are mayflies. Pop music, TV, fast fashion.
My hunch is the average lifecycle of social media brands and MMORPG properties are roughly the same. Say 5-10 years?