Will charging for posts lead to higher social media content quality?
1–10 of 55 posts
Re: Will charging for posts lead to higher social media content quality?
#2Even if you beat the network effect and become the next Facebook/Twitter/Whatever, charging $1 per post will inevitably lead to silencing poor, or even comparatively poor people — which is most of the world.
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.
Re: Will charging for posts lead to higher social media content quality?
#3Why not take it further? Everybody's feed is an auction. Sorry mom, I didn't see my cousin's baby pictures, but Amazon really wanted me to see this pair of shoes and I made $2 today.
Re: Will charging for posts lead to higher social media content quality?
#4Even if you beat the network effect and become the next Facebook/Twitter/Whatever, charging $1 per post will inevitably lead to silencing poor, or even comparatively poor people — which is most of the world. 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 beca…
(These are harsh points of view and not necessarily ones I hold. I'd like them to be savagely attacked for the sake of discussion.)
- 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?
Re: Will charging for posts lead to higher social media content quality?
#5A better start would be to simply bring back downvotes. Tweak the algorithm to seriously hamper the visibility of posts with a high downvote ratio.
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.
Re: Will charging for posts lead to higher social media content quality?
#6It depends on what you mean by quality.
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.
Re: Will charging for posts lead to higher social media content quality?
#7Even if you beat the network effect and become the next Facebook/Twitter/Whatever, charging $1 per post will inevitably lead to silencing poor, or even comparatively poor people — which is most of the world. 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 beca…
(These are harsh points of view and not necessarily ones I hold. I'd like them to be savagely attacked for the sake of discussion.) - 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 econom…
If you insist: There's a difference between destitute and poor. Someone working as a janitor with a unimpressive but acceptable salary, who has to pinch pennies to make ends meet, can still be a good poster. (Anecdotally, a lot of good Twitter posters seem to have lots of problems with student debt and the like.)
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.
Re: Will charging for posts lead to higher social media content quality?
#8Even if you beat the network effect and become the next Facebook/Twitter/Whatever, charging $1 per post will inevitably lead to silencing poor, or even comparatively poor people — which is most of the world. 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 beca…
Seems their plan is for public posts to be $1/post but "Posts among friends will always be free."
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.
Re: Will charging for posts lead to higher social media content quality?
#9A better start would be to simply bring back downvotes. Tweak the algorithm to seriously hamper the visibility of posts with a high downvote ratio. 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 wo…
>"vastly overrepresents content that is actively harmful to society, meaning conspiracy theories, right wing propaganda and general fake news"
Your list seems lopsided.
Re: Will charging for posts lead to higher social media content quality?
#10Even if you beat the network effect and become the next Facebook/Twitter/Whatever, charging $1 per post will inevitably lead to silencing poor, or even comparatively poor people — which is most of the world. 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 beca…
The charge could scale with audience size. For audiences of (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).