pull down to refresh

334 sats \ 7 replies \ @ek 16h \ on: my problem with zaps the_stacker_muse
I agree with your sentiment. I also don't like to shove money into every corner of the internet, see #882169.
However, I like the alternatives to monetize content, rank content or fight spam less:
  1. Content is mostly monetized via ads. Ads are privacy-invasive since they want to target specific groups, and they also decide who gets monetized and who doesn't.1
  2. Content is ranked via engagement metrics like clicks, likes, comments, watch time etc. These metrics can also be privacy-invasive (tracking what users like across many dimensions), aren't even sybil-resistant and don't even necessarily produce content that we would consider good: clickbait, ragebait etc.
  3. Spam is usually dealt with using subjective moderation, indistinguishable from censorship.
So, considering all trade-offs, I think using money is the most neutral form of curating online experiences.
We're probably still missing a lot of tweaks though, see #770966 for example.

Footnotes

  1. Yes, I know, most user-generated content like replies don't need to earn money, but the content that generates most users usually does so. Most content users want to consume might be free to consume, but isn't free to produce. ↩
write
preview
this territory is moderated
281 sats \ 3 replies \ @unschooled OP 14h
you've given the trade offs more thought than I have. thanks for laying them out clearly here.
id push back by saying that money doesnt "curate" but provides the incentives. not saying this to split hairs, but just because it is always the users that do the work curating. this seems important to say because zaps help to determine the kind of content users will share, but its the user's decision ultimately.
also, i find this interesting, "that the content that generates most users usually does [earn money]" which i think is the case because for platforms to compete online, attractive content should be rewarded, to create a flywheel effect for more users to join in. these are business decisions beyond my paygrade.
as i wrote to denlillaapan, my critique comes from a place of wanting to see less of the gambling on what we think will get the most attention, and more meaningful interaction. it seems the reward system promotes the former.
reply
163 sats \ 2 replies \ @unschooled OP 14h
just an idea: maybe a "territory rewards" configuration where owners can reward top posters and commenters with a portion of the daily territory revenue
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @BlokchainB 12h
I think this is coming
reply
11 sats \ 0 replies \ @ek 9h
yeah something like that
reply
80 sats \ 1 reply \ @WeAreAllSatoshi 15h
I zapped your reply instead of leaving a comment (until now). Am I part of the problem?
reply
126 sats \ 0 replies \ @ek 14h
I assume your reply is related to this from me in #882169:
the few times I zap because someone was helpful, I feel like a more thoughtful reply about how they just changed my life would maybe have been better than a measly 21-100 sats zap.
Mhhh, maybe what I mentioned there wasn't a problem, but wishful thinking. I thought if I didn't have the option to zap, I would think "Oh, I can't zap, so now I need to reply with something so they know I appreciate them, because that's really important to me."
Now that I think about it again, I actually don't think that happens, lol. If I'd truly cared about them knowing that I appreciate them, I would zap and reply, no? One doesn't prevent the other in the cases it actually matters.
So even though what I wrote above sounded like I think zaps prevent engagement with content via thoughtful replies, I actually don't, or at least not anymore. It just allows us to show appreciation more granular?
But then again, one could argue that "more granular appreciation" also means that when you now not only have the choice between 0 (do nothing) and 100 appreciation (reply), but also everything in between, more 100's get turned into something less than 0's get turned into something more ... I don't know, thinking about this breaks my brain, I am no expert in human behavior or psychology, haha
almost forgets to zap
reply
11 sats \ 0 replies \ @denlillaapan 13h
So, considering all trade-offs, I think using money is the most neutral form of curating online experiences. this I agree with, ek. Don't have a good fix... perhaps it's just a hard problem, and SN stumbled onto the only (somewhat?) working alternative
reply