[taurath]

They need to talk about the network effect, and where the power is centered here. Hint - its not with the content creators, nor the users. Its the platform. Its the rent-seeking behavior on the part of the platforms that causes every entry in this space to rise when there's investment money, and then fall when they have to start making the money back and implement creator and user unfriendly mechanisms. Then the content creators have to replatform, which can lose them much of their audience.

We can break the cycle with self-hosted platform-agnostic tools. Most everything these platforms do is available off the shelf - the differentiations don't actually matter. The content creators aren't being given an audience, they build audiences for the platform. Everything the platform does once it has to start making money is in service to the platform and the investors, not the "workers", or the users.

[doomlaser]

> Most everything these platforms do is available off the shelf - the differentiations don't actually matter

Except, often critically, the very network effect that those platforms help foster.

Try self-hosting a viral video and see how far it gets you. It's much harder to break through. This very discussion is taking place on a platform that focuses a network effect for a very specific but sizeable audience. How would it take place otherwise?

[taurath]

People post external links in social media all the time. You don't have to be where people start, you can just be where people end up.

[doomlaser]

Almost every social media platform now has its own video hosting service, and that is the service privileged with automatic-playing or otherwise friction-free playing video content. As a result, on, say, Twitter or Facebook, the videos that get the most virality are the ones being hosted natively on that social network's corresponding video platform.

I agree with you that it would be better if everyone self-hosted and was able to charge what they wanted. I think it may be more realistic to hope for more platforms—competing with each other—to whittle down the rent they are able to seek from the creators that bring them value. Make them compete for the content creators. And, if they grow too unwieldy, regulate them (or threaten to) so that they set reasonable ground rules.

[taurath]

Though really, the goal is not always virality. For the content creators who’s goal is that, then selling them audiences probably works. My problem with that is that it incentivizes triviality and lowest common denominator creation in the long term.

[doomlaser]

You can replace the word virality and substitute "engagement", and I would argue that this is something most creators would want from their work. And what about a self-regulated platform like Hacker News? It appears to me to incentivize good content and, at its best, punish triviality. Again, how would we be having this discussion without it?

[zozbot234]

Network effects actually favor open, federated platforms over walled gardens. The problem is that social media, "user-generated" content hosting, etc. have yet to be disrupted by federated offerings - they're still at that stage where there's one Compuserve and a zillion indie BBS's that don't even talk to one another (no UUCP, no Fidonet)! It will happen as it always has.

[doomlaser]

Is Google Search not a walled garden? How about GitHub? Bandcamp? SoundCloud? They appear to be winning in the sectors I can think of. Even internet piracy.

[claudeganon]

As someone who has worked in the arts for over a decade, I see no path forward besides worker ownership of these platforms. Every other arrangement leads to race-to-the-bottom for the labor on these platforms.

Maybe the ongoing collapse of American cities as places that are unaffordable for anyone other that the ultra-wealthy will push software engineers in this direction. The housing crisis in San Francisco alone should demonstrate that class interests of white collar employees are more aligned with those of the workers on the platforms they create then those of their current owners.

[m463]

That sort of reminds me of this old article on Airlines:

https://philip.greenspun.com/flying/unions-and-airlines

"Regardless of whether the U.S. is able to maintain its trade barriers, a sustainable long-term structure would be a pilot-owned airline. If the pilots are the owners there need be no conflict concerning distributing profits. "

[barry-cotter]

> Maybe the ongoing collapse of American cities as places that are unaffordable for anyone other that the ultra-wealthy will push software engineers in this direction. The housing crisis in San Francisco alone should demonstrate that class interests of white collar employees are more aligned with those of the workers on the platforms they create then those of their current owners.

This is ridiculous. That some cities in the US are unaffordable and becoming more so is a result of democratic decisions. Californian voters are like Irish voters, disproportionately property owners, and you see the same insane rise in property prices in much of the English speaking world. There are the occasional bright spots, like Seattle but the problem has a bloody obvious solution, build more housing. Tokyo’s rent and house prices have been basically flat for two decades while population increased by 50%.

San Francisco has the planning and zoning and housing it votes for, just like New York. If the desirability of any area increases and housing doesn’t then housing gets more expensive.

[claudeganon]

Of course the obvious solution would be to build more housing, but the wealthy and other incumbent interests will throw everything they have at preventing this from happening or keeping it unaffordable for those who need it.

That a society is ostensibly democratic tells you little about how the levers of power actually function around things like urban policy and real estate development. You also need a theory of power and means of change to implement whatever it is you want to accomplish. Per my original comment, I think a greater solidarity between white collar workers and the working class, as they both get soaked by rising rents and home prices, could provide a possibility for this kind of change.

[cousin_it]

> As someone who has worked in the arts for over a decade, I see no path forward besides worker ownership of these platforms. Every other arrangement leads to race-to-the-bottom for the labor on these platforms.

Sure, less popular creators can get some monetary support from a more progressive society arrangement. But they won't get more popularity, unless you can explain how your society arrangement leads to equitable redistribution of popularity. In other words, the median book author might get a nice basic income, but their book will still get crickets.

[claudeganon]

Most of the artists and writers I’ve ever met don’t actually want massive popularity. They just want to be able to make their work and hone their skills without dying in poverty. I think this kind of pursuit of fame is more driven by the underlying material realities, where you have to either pursue being incredibly famous or be unable to survive.

[burntoutfire]

> Maybe the ongoing collapse of American cities as places that are unaffordable for anyone other that the ultra-wealthy

A large percentage of Americans live in cities. Are they all ultra-wealthy?

[dsaavy]

I think that’s a severe underestimation of the impact of a popular and easy place of congregation. The center of power being the platform is how things work in the digital realm and the in-person realm.

As a random example, if someone is shopping for a steak, they normally would go to a market, grocery store, or butcher shop in a popular plaza near their home. If you’re in America, most likely that steak is sourced from a farm owned by a large corporation. You could go to local butcher who sources their meat from local small farms and add 30 minutes to your shopping, but it doesn’t have potatoes and green beans you'd like on the side of that steak dinner. Some people will absolutely make that trip, but not nearly as much as if that butcher got a shop in the popular plaza near everything else, owned by a commercial real estate company.

While the physical shopping example obviously has more friction than the digital example, the value is still high to provide a centrally located platform for consumers, creators and businesses to congregate. The power is rightfully focused on those that provide that platform.

[TeMPOraL]

I wouldn't say the power is "rightfully" focused on those that run the platform, just that the shape of the market makes it so. A platform - whether a streaming site or a commercial plaza - is worthless without a plethora of content/goods providers on board. But there's much more providers than platforms, so platforms get to set the rules.

[mark_l_watson]

I certainly agree with you about the value of self-hosting for creators. Own your own domain(s) and build your own online properties.

I did see an interesting an interesting article about hosting your own content and then use shadow copies, linking back to original, on Medium, etc. I never tried it though, and I am not convinced it would be a good idea.

[s_r_n]

The article touches on your point by differentiating between SaaS products vs. marketplaces. It sounds like you're in favor of SaaS over marketplaces.

[hardwaresofton]

> We can break the cycle with self-hosted platform-agnostic tools. Most everything these platforms do is available off the shelf - the differentiations don't actually matter. The content creators aren't being given an audience, they build audiences for the platform. Everything the platform does once it has to start making money is in service to the platform and the investors, not the "workers", or the users.

Another idea to go with this is giving the followers/subscribers a way to help the content creator that isn't (directly) monetary -- serving as a CDN for their content. I think the tools are actually even all there right now (torrenting, live stream relaying tech, DHTs, etc) -- it's just no one has created a compelling platform that is super easy to use -- I mean like no set up -- Enter your patreon/stripe, click "Stream" and start streaming, tell your followers to download the app.

There are some alternatives out there though:

- https://mediagoblin.org

- https://joinpeertube.org

An app like these, but with as little set up as possible and the right pairing for an easy path to profitability (again, probably just hooking up a stripe/patreon) and the right amount of social features would blow this wide open.

People often talk about the problem with moderation, but people on Twitch solve that mostly by empowering certain members of the audience to be moderators (who are happy to contribute and glad to get some power/special status).

Another problem that often is mentioned is discovery -- how will people find the good content? I think you can leave discovery to other platforms for now or find a way to solve it later -- worst case we can literally re-grow the way the old internet did it -- start with web rings, and scraping. In the extreme case, if discovery becomes such a bad problem, someone will step in and charge for it (whether on the supply or demand side).

As a side note, I almost wrote a rant on HN the other day about the "passion economy" (I believe it was on a article about restaurant), but thought better of it because I just don't think the HN crowd is ready to hear opinions against the current state of the capitalist system since most here are benefitting handily (the same insular view that prevents workers in tech from unionizing). I think it's growing in popularity because people are growing increasingly unsatisfied with their work prospects and are being fed fantasies about how they could succeed in a low-effort second job vaguely related to something they like doing. I think most people trying to become twitch streamers or make it big on youtube or as influencers would stop if their jobs paid them wages that made them feel financially secure. Sure some people would still stream/play/market or whatever, but they'd do it at their own pace and be much less focused on making a profit (and trading away rights/benefits to larger platform companies to do so). The real problem here isn't these companies, it's a unregulated capitalism creating a walking nightmare of "gig"s (whether it's an actual gig economy job or a full time job that pays you gig wages), giving people just enough so they can survive but not enough to thrive -- perfect for picking up another one of the gig economy jobs to try and get there.