[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.