> I would say that most social media has been designed to hide the price of attention, whereas SN makes it easier to see.

It's hard to capture, and there's no interest in making such info public in traditional media. It's reflected in the ROIs and financial reports and I'd not say that attention is reflected with sats value on SN. That's just the value expressed in sats by some users. 

The art *measuring* value is a tricky one and relying in only one scale is risky, not accurate anyway. I'd, for example consider time spent on a page, global views and single users views too as I doubt all visitors are zappin'

And here we are again, putting a prize tag on *time*.

supratic

For a while I went down the attention economy rabbithole: could attention be a currency? You are right that many of the terms we use around attention are monetary terms.

Ultimately, though, I don't think attention works like that. It is something people want, but talking about it as "more" or "less" valuable than money doesn't quite make sense to me.

 valuable. One way we might talk about that is by putting prices on it. And I would say that most social media has been designed to hide the price of attention, whereas SN makes it easier to see.

econ

Should you have to pay to mute on SN (and do other things too)?

Scoresby

I agree! The next line after the image:

> Obviously, it does cost something

For a while I went down the attention economy rabbithole: could attention be a currency? You are right that many of the terms we use around attention are monetary terms. 

Ultimately, though, I don't think attention works like that. It is something people want, but talking about it as "more" or "less" valuable than money doesn't quite make sense to me. 

Attention *is* valuable. One way we might talk about that is by putting prices on it. And I would say that most social media has been designed to hide the price of attention, whereas SN makes it easier to see.