235 sats \ 10 replies \ @freetx 1 Jul \ parent \ on: SN Zapping and Posting Fees meta
This topic is probably too big to write meaningfully on...but in general I'm not a fan of territory model. I think SN should simply implement a monthly subscription fee for users -- something modest 2500 sats or so.
In turn, I think Territories should be done away with entirely and replaced with the ability to set tags on new post.
An aside, but important for future: Sub-reddits is ultimately what led to the downfall of Reddit. It created the ability for 'cabals of mods' to form. In fact it became a big business to take over subreddits and stack the mod team with members. Those members then controlled opinion in the sub-reddit and sold access to social media companies. This is why every sub-reddit, no matter the topic, seems to have the same core values....because they are just proxies who sell access to the same bidders.
SN should just be one big homepage with the ability to filter based on tags.
As for the subscription fee model. I think users having "skin in the game" is exactly whats needed to create a site that fosters quality content. Any normal user can earn 2500 sats per month in just making average, non-spam comments / posts.
Thus, the user will just be paying the 2500 sats out of their monthly earnings and will likely never need fund more money into their wallet (outside of initial buy-in).
I'm not conceding Tags > Territories, yet, but I definitely didn't appreciate some of the benefits of tags back when SN was initially discussing this.
We still need to see what cross-posting and sub-territories actually look like, before I can make that assessment. Plus, there's still a bunch of decision levers that haven't been granted to territory owners, yet.
reply
there's still a bunch of decision levers that haven't been granted to territory owners, yet
I'm open to whatever new tricks they have up their sleeve, but I don't think Territories will ever have any kind of scarcity. If scarcity isn't achieved, then whats the point?
If "Photos" starts making lots of money, someone will just create a "Photos2". In the end, all territory owners will be forced into marginal rates of return at or below break-even.
At that point, territory owners simply become almost charitable owners - and there is no real problem with that - its just a really convoluted way to impose monthly subscription fees.
reply
I don't think that's right. Just like there is no Bitcoin2 that is a serious threat, there are forces that work in favor of first movers and good managers.
Territories are quite expensive to maintain, which limits entry. We also have relationships with the active territory owners. If someone else started their own sports territory, just to undercut @grayruby, I wouldn't go there.
reply
reply
I don't think so. Territory owners will just have to keep fees low enough where it's not worth starting a competing territory.
reply
+1
I was thinking if territories are necessary instead use tags 🏷️
reply
That was the big debate back when we were headed down the territory road.
reply
Can we tag 🏷️ a thread ?
reply
No, tags lost the debate.
reply
What about keeping territories but putting them behind a paywall. As the internet becomes shittier by the day, I would be willing to shell out sats for access to a high quality knowledge base on a variety of topics.
reply