This has become the prevailing opinion for most of the tech-savvy folks that I know, but it’s gaining traction with a wider audience.
Having steeped in corpo-climate for two decades, it’s naïve to say that the C-Suite has ever maintained a realistic perspective on the business that they run; but it is baffling to me that corporations like Reddit have completely lost sight of their actual product - a clearinghouse of perpetually donated content - and seem to believe that their platform cannot be easily duplicated, or made obsolete nearly overnight.
It’s exciting to be an insider as new paradigms like the fediverse become more widely known. If the last week is any indicator, there is a non-zero chance that ultra-capitalist hubris will be punished.
What I really don’t understand is, how all these C suites are apparently a) completely unaware of theor cost structure and b) never seem to understand what they’re actually selling.
Reddit is nothing special, do you really need a bunch of Valley bros earning 200k or more?
Do you really need all those stupid extras like NFTs? Reddit launched their NFTs way too late, when even the pretty big idiots started to doubt the concept.
The older I get, the less I understand the whole world of business administration. Nothing makes sense, it feels like 90% of the CEO are working really hard to ram their companies hard enough into the ground to hit magma.
seem to believe that their platform cannot be easily duplicated, or made obsolete nearly overnight.
As much as it pains me to say it, I think they are right. The value in social media is in the size of their user base and I don’t see a mass migration to another platform really happening unless reddit itself went completely offline for several weeks. People do not like change and Reddit will continue to be just “good enough” despite the API changes. If anything their decline will be extremely gradual since moderators will have lost most of their third party moderation tools. And niche communities can probably keep ticking along without them for the most part.
Previous sites died because there was a continual stream of new VC funded initiatives still in the ‘seduce new users’ phase of low-zero monetization for people to jump to. That tap of new, user-friendly sites has been shut off by the recent interest rate hikes curtailing VC funding.
Worried we’ll eventually settle into semi-collusive model we see Cell Carriers and ISPs have. If all 5 major social media sites stay in lock step of monetization, who are you going to go to? And without VC money, what new site will be able to truly scale?
I don’t mind if most of reddit users stay there, we just need to attract the valuable ones. Back on reddit I wouldn’t have welcomed the entirety of Twitter for example, too many bad contributors.
Contributors also want their content to be seen and communities with 500 subscribers aren’t all that attractive. So I don’t expect anyone to abandon the mainstream options. The most we can hope for (and all I’m really asking for) is cross-site posting and participation.
Go ahead and visit Reddit, just be sure to post/comment on on the fediverse as well.
Whether their hubris is punished or not is of no consequence to me. In some ways the ultimate karma is waking up every day to find out we are ourselves. I’m more concerned with building cool stuff for us to use than with anyone getting what I think is their comeuppance.
The fact of the matter is that I don’t care if something is a monopoly as long as it’s a monopoly for it’s quality. Reddit used to be that, a hub for damn near all of my interests, and I used Boost to make the experience great.
But reddit is getting worse with this change, so I’m here now.
I don’t care if something is a monopoly as long as it’s a monopoly for it’s quality.
But the problem with social media is that monopolies in this area aren’t about quality, they are about user base size. Which makes them impossible to dethrone once they hit critical mass. Reddit and other social media sites have a massive amount of content with people willing to figure out a way to sift through the garbage.
It will be interesting to see how bad things get once reddit moderators can no longer use bots and other tools in order to help them sift through content due to the API changes.
Yeah. There’s nothing inherently wrong with monopolies. The problem with them is just the behaviour that they tend to slip into, the squeezing of their customers for maximum revenue while not bothering to invest any of it in improving their services. There are some “natural” monopolies that manage to do okay, though usually as a result of government regulation.
Some monopolies are so solidly “okay” that we don’t even notice that they’re monopolies. The Internet, for example. What alternatives to it exist? None, really. But since it’s a decentralized protocol rather than some sort of Internet Incorporated with shareholders and quarterly profits to maximize and whatnot it’s managed to stay good and the fact that it’s a monopoly is actually beneficial in many ways.
As for monopolies… they are inherently bad because of the lack of motivation to innovate, or improve. You have no other option, and no ability to create one.
I don’t want to stray too far from the topic, but I feel like I need to address the mention of the internet as a monopoly.
If you’re talking about TCP/IP, it’s just a protocol that the most widely used - but others exist, and outperform it in their niches.
The internet is a collection of technologies that are owned and operated by thousands of companies. All have competition in their arenas.
ISPs have constructed local fiefdoms - but there are nearly always multiple services that one can use. Backbone companies own the major routes, but you can almost always go around one if it misbehaves. Myriad email providers, websites, etc exist to offer choices, as well.
Categorically, the internet can not be or become a monopoly. It’s core purpose is to provide as many avenues as possible to connect machines to AVOID monopolization.
Interestingly, the downfall of Communism was precisely that political communism forms a government-managed monopoly, exhibiting exactly the characteristics you outline. People who rail against communism are really railing against monopoly and the stagnancy and corruption it creates. And yet somehow some of these people are all-in on libertarianism.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !technology@beehaw.org
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
@0xtero
@hedge
This has become the prevailing opinion for most of the tech-savvy folks that I know, but it’s gaining traction with a wider audience.
Having steeped in corpo-climate for two decades, it’s naïve to say that the C-Suite has ever maintained a realistic perspective on the business that they run; but it is baffling to me that corporations like Reddit have completely lost sight of their actual product - a clearinghouse of perpetually donated content - and seem to believe that their platform cannot be easily duplicated, or made obsolete nearly overnight.
It’s exciting to be an insider as new paradigms like the fediverse become more widely known. If the last week is any indicator, there is a non-zero chance that ultra-capitalist hubris will be punished.
What I really don’t understand is, how all these C suites are apparently a) completely unaware of theor cost structure and b) never seem to understand what they’re actually selling.
Reddit is nothing special, do you really need a bunch of Valley bros earning 200k or more?
Do you really need all those stupid extras like NFTs? Reddit launched their NFTs way too late, when even the pretty big idiots started to doubt the concept.
The older I get, the less I understand the whole world of business administration. Nothing makes sense, it feels like 90% of the CEO are working really hard to ram their companies hard enough into the ground to hit magma.
Because those C suites do it for their salary, not for the greater good or the good of their investors.
As much as it pains me to say it, I think they are right. The value in social media is in the size of their user base and I don’t see a mass migration to another platform really happening unless reddit itself went completely offline for several weeks. People do not like change and Reddit will continue to be just “good enough” despite the API changes. If anything their decline will be extremely gradual since moderators will have lost most of their third party moderation tools. And niche communities can probably keep ticking along without them for the most part.
Previous sites died because there was a continual stream of new VC funded initiatives still in the ‘seduce new users’ phase of low-zero monetization for people to jump to. That tap of new, user-friendly sites has been shut off by the recent interest rate hikes curtailing VC funding.
Worried we’ll eventually settle into semi-collusive model we see Cell Carriers and ISPs have. If all 5 major social media sites stay in lock step of monetization, who are you going to go to? And without VC money, what new site will be able to truly scale?
I don’t mind if most of reddit users stay there, we just need to attract the valuable ones. Back on reddit I wouldn’t have welcomed the entirety of Twitter for example, too many bad contributors.
Contributors also want their content to be seen and communities with 500 subscribers aren’t all that attractive. So I don’t expect anyone to abandon the mainstream options. The most we can hope for (and all I’m really asking for) is cross-site posting and participation.
Go ahead and visit Reddit, just be sure to post/comment on on the fediverse as well.
eh, depends. I can see myself contributing to a smaller audience of people I care for rather than a bigger one of people I don’t.
Whether their hubris is punished or not is of no consequence to me. In some ways the ultimate karma is waking up every day to find out we are ourselves. I’m more concerned with building cool stuff for us to use than with anyone getting what I think is their comeuppance.
The fact of the matter is that I don’t care if something is a monopoly as long as it’s a monopoly for it’s quality. Reddit used to be that, a hub for damn near all of my interests, and I used Boost to make the experience great.
But reddit is getting worse with this change, so I’m here now.
But the problem with social media is that monopolies in this area aren’t about quality, they are about user base size. Which makes them impossible to dethrone once they hit critical mass. Reddit and other social media sites have a massive amount of content with people willing to figure out a way to sift through the garbage.
It will be interesting to see how bad things get once reddit moderators can no longer use bots and other tools in order to help them sift through content due to the API changes.
Yeah. There’s nothing inherently wrong with monopolies. The problem with them is just the behaviour that they tend to slip into, the squeezing of their customers for maximum revenue while not bothering to invest any of it in improving their services. There are some “natural” monopolies that manage to do okay, though usually as a result of government regulation.
Some monopolies are so solidly “okay” that we don’t even notice that they’re monopolies. The Internet, for example. What alternatives to it exist? None, really. But since it’s a decentralized protocol rather than some sort of Internet Incorporated with shareholders and quarterly profits to maximize and whatnot it’s managed to stay good and the fact that it’s a monopoly is actually beneficial in many ways.
@FaceDeer
@hedge @0xtero @gk99
As for monopolies… they are inherently bad because of the lack of motivation to innovate, or improve. You have no other option, and no ability to create one.
I don’t want to stray too far from the topic, but I feel like I need to address the mention of the internet as a monopoly.
If you’re talking about TCP/IP, it’s just a protocol that the most widely used - but others exist, and outperform it in their niches.
The internet is a collection of technologies that are owned and operated by thousands of companies. All have competition in their arenas.
ISPs have constructed local fiefdoms - but there are nearly always multiple services that one can use. Backbone companies own the major routes, but you can almost always go around one if it misbehaves. Myriad email providers, websites, etc exist to offer choices, as well.
Categorically, the internet can not be or become a monopoly. It’s core purpose is to provide as many avenues as possible to connect machines to AVOID monopolization.
Interestingly, the downfall of Communism was precisely that political communism forms a government-managed monopoly, exhibiting exactly the characteristics you outline. People who rail against communism are really railing against monopoly and the stagnancy and corruption it creates. And yet somehow some of these people are all-in on libertarianism.
Succinctly stated. I wish authoritarian left types would understand this.