130 sats \ 2 replies \ @k00b 11 Jul 2022 \ parent \ on: Daily discussion thread
It's hard to say definitively. But it's a better experience for consumers if producers are moderating themselves by paying, so perhaps net consumers will be willing to pay for that better experience.
Imagine if at one point, it were free to create boxes of cereal and put them in grocery store A. Imagine grocery store B charged cereal companies a small fee to be put in their stores. Overtime, arguably, grocery store B would only have cereals that people wanted to consume because they'd need to recoup their costs. As a consumer, would you be willing to pay 5% more for the cereals in grocery store B to avoid sifting through all the garbage in grocery store A? I would.
Grocery store A (fb, yt, reddit), solves their infinite cereal problem by moderating which requires you trust their judgement and finances that moderation by you submitting to privacy and attention invasion.
Anyway, half-thought-out thought experiment that might help ground this discussion more.
To extend the analogy, a high-end grocery store will have less selection, but more variety and much higher quality. In the case of store A, everything is made by three manufacturers and its all made from the same poisonous sludge (condescending orthodox fluorescent tan soychested left-only tribalists and their bots). Grocery store B has fewer of each category, but more categories and vendors all of them are higher quality, and you'll have a hard time finding any of the garbage sold by the three producers in store A.
reply
Great analogy!
reply