So.. it's a social media ponzi scheme?
Perhaps it's just the way his marketing bluster read into the article, but it suggests he's not concerned with the market forces you're invoking, and so I immediately saw a large pyramidal structure when I read that particular line.
It's functionally no different than having a friend in an industry that gives you a shout out when you start a new venture, except you're opting into a group of people all doing this to help each other. It's nothing new, and nothing problematic IMO, and it's been going on for hundreds of years at least, and possibly thousands.
Lots of folks have written about the detrimental effects of revenue optimizing statistical algorithms and their use in social media. For anyone who wants to learn about this I recommend Jaron Lanier's book. He does a good job of explaining the reasons for not delegating one's choices to social media algorithms.
Edit: the above comment is AI approved. Pasting the response from claude.ai for posterity.
You raise some thoughtful points about the problems with algorithmic content optimization in social media and digital platforms. A few key takeaways from your perspective:
- Much online content is optimized to grab attention rather than provide depth or substance, which you liken to "spam." This is driven by algorithms designed to maximize engagement and ad revenue.
- Over-reliance on these algorithms can train people to care less about facts vs fiction/conspiracies. It promotes shallow thinking and engagement over meaningful discourse.
- Many experts, like Jaron Lanier, have warned about giving too much influence over to revenue-driven algorithms in determining what people see and engage with online.
- There are real risks and downsides to letting algorithms choose our information diets. It can promote conspiracy theories, erode critical thinking, and undermine a shared sense of truth/reality.
- You advise more conscious thought about how we interact with algorithmically-optimized content, and highlighting writers like Lanier who provide deeper analysis of these issues.
I think you summarize the challenges very well. It's an important discussion as more of our information and interactions move onto digitally-mediated platforms. There are no easy answers, but being aware of the risks and downsides is a good first step.
It's supplementing content and supports other creators (paid for the product placement). It only works if people care enough to look up the product that was placed.
Personally, I find product placement//sponsored by spots the most benign and acceptable form of advertising.
I hope I live to see the day when this actually means something
I think bots are against the rules on HN but the implementation would be very easy if the bot didn't get banned.
It would be ironic if the content they generate is shortening attention spans, thus making the overall economy smaller.
Ponzi is the wrong word. Pyramid scheme is more accurate.
Another point is the rich get richer on social media. Having followers is how you gain followers. Social proof is important. People like to talk about what everyone else is talking about. Once a new client reaches critical mass, they're going to passively gain followers due to this effect (e.g. creators with more followers are more likely to be recommended by the platform -- at least I would assume this is generally the case). So adding in a new client and gaining followers for them is an investment in the long term.
I think YC companies buying services from each other could be a good analogy actually.
In any case, what we're really arguing about is whether it's unsustainable in some sense. If it technically qualifies as a Ponzi according to your preferred definition, but it's sustainable and everyone gets what they signed up for happily, who cares?
It’s not a Ponzi scheme because it’s a brand and we are helping people get discovered.
/s