I disagree that users really have any say in the direction of the platform. Users aren’t clambering for ads or for crappy Amazon products, and so I don’t think it’s the competing interests of users that drive these changes. I see it as more of a conflict between users and owners.
Platform begins with small user base
Investors pour in capital to support and encourage the growth of the user base. At this stage the platform runs at a massive loss. This is when times are good for users.
Investors, now with substantial influence, seek a return on investment by encouraging new anti-features on the platform.
Maybe this sounds like the same thing, but there are different solutions. If I understand you right, your solution to this problem is to restrict growth, which could allow for a more unified community that could push back against these changes. I would argue to change the incentives, change the governance model, so that the platform is publicly administered or administered by a non-profit or cooperative that is accountable to users, not shareholders. See how this very website (lemmy.ca) is being incorporated as a non-profit. It’s pretty neat!
Users aren’t clambering for ads or for crappy Amazon products
With respect, is it that you do not understand what money represents? Let me keep it simple: Money is just an IOU. Why would someone give an IOU to provide goods or services at a later point in time? The answer is because they received a good and/or service of equal value now.
Obviously some users are clambering for ads or crappy Amazon products if someone else is receiving money by offering them. If they were not, there would be no money for someone to collect. And those users showing up, with misaligned interests to others in the community, creates a tug-of-war effect. Eventually someone will win.
See how this very website (lemmy.ca) is being incorporated as a non-profit. It’s pretty neat!
Way back in the day I used to use a Usenet host operated by a co-operative. Technically, I was a partial owner of that server by virtue of being a user, which I think is even neater!
Usenet is still out there in operation, I guess, but let’s face it – it is, for all practical purposes, dead. If cunning ownership structures weren’t able to save it, what’s magically different this time? I really don’t see what lemmy.ca is doing that hasn’t already been tried many times before?
I still disagree with you but I don’t think either of us are going to convince each other. I appreciate you sharing your perspective, I wasn’t around back in the Usenet days and it’s cool to hear about it and how you were involved.
I still disagree with you but I don’t think either of us are going to convince each other.
Was there some reason we would want to, or should, convince another? It seems like that would completely defeat the purpose of having a discussion. I don’t quite understand what this is intended to convey.
I disagree that users really have any say in the direction of the platform. Users aren’t clambering for ads or for crappy Amazon products, and so I don’t think it’s the competing interests of users that drive these changes. I see it as more of a conflict between users and owners.
Maybe this sounds like the same thing, but there are different solutions. If I understand you right, your solution to this problem is to restrict growth, which could allow for a more unified community that could push back against these changes. I would argue to change the incentives, change the governance model, so that the platform is publicly administered or administered by a non-profit or cooperative that is accountable to users, not shareholders. See how this very website (lemmy.ca) is being incorporated as a non-profit. It’s pretty neat!
With respect, is it that you do not understand what money represents? Let me keep it simple: Money is just an IOU. Why would someone give an IOU to provide goods or services at a later point in time? The answer is because they received a good and/or service of equal value now.
Obviously some users are clambering for ads or crappy Amazon products if someone else is receiving money by offering them. If they were not, there would be no money for someone to collect. And those users showing up, with misaligned interests to others in the community, creates a tug-of-war effect. Eventually someone will win.
Way back in the day I used to use a Usenet host operated by a co-operative. Technically, I was a partial owner of that server by virtue of being a user, which I think is even neater!
Usenet is still out there in operation, I guess, but let’s face it – it is, for all practical purposes, dead. If cunning ownership structures weren’t able to save it, what’s magically different this time? I really don’t see what lemmy.ca is doing that hasn’t already been tried many times before?
I still disagree with you but I don’t think either of us are going to convince each other. I appreciate you sharing your perspective, I wasn’t around back in the Usenet days and it’s cool to hear about it and how you were involved.
Was there some reason we would want to, or should, convince another? It seems like that would completely defeat the purpose of having a discussion. I don’t quite understand what this is intended to convey.
I was trying to respectfully disengage!
I appreciated the conversation. Other people can be convinced they are not talking to each other privately.