[randomdata]

I'm not sure that is the case. Reddit's problem is that they have consistently used up more value to run the service than they have been able to deliver in return. Now they are running around like chickens with their heads cut off desperately trying to find some way to increase the value provided/decrease the value needed to stave off certain death.

A socially owned organization operated in the same manner would be suffering the same fate right now. The idea that exchanging parties expect trade of equal value is not a feature of capitalism. It is the basis of all economic systems; at least those which do not depend on an imagined post-scarcity world.

[lotsoweiners]

> A socially owned organization operated in the same manner would be suffering the same fate right now.

The thing is I don’t think a socially owned organization would have operated the same way. The core Reddit product of Reddit, text and links to images, is still valid today and what the long time users want. The expensive part: development/maintenance of new features like live streaming, mobile apps, recommendations algorithms, etc are all driven by profits and IPO hopes.

[randomdata]

> are all driven by profits and IPO hopes.

If that is all that drove them, why did they not dig random holes on the Reddit campus instead? I think you will find that there was a belief that these features would provide the missing value. It is likely fair to say that it failed, but such is life.

The socially owned telephone company in my neck of the woods, of which I and the rest of my community are members, once spent big to enter the cell phone market. It too failed to deliver on the necessary value and we eventually had to back away from offering the service. The operations manager has said it was the biggest mistake the organization has ever made. Being socially owned doesn't mean value will magically present itself. After all, beneath it all is still humans and all of their faults.

In a similar vein, the original Reddit, Usenet, may not be strictly socially owned but shares a lot in common with social ownership. It too has, for all intents and purposes, failed. The core product is there: Text, links, and images, but it seems that's not enough. Few are willing to give up anything for those things. They really don't hold much, if any, value. The humans that lie beneath to keep it all working want something in return.

And that something in return is what Reddit is, now desperately, trying to find. They took to try and find it, but one can only hold out on giving back for so long and the clock is ticking.

Again, this is not something of capitalism. People not wanting to keep giving to people who won't give back in return has been around since the dawn of mankind, long before capitalism was invented. The laggard who always sleeps all day, offering nothing to the community, while the rest of the tribe works tirelessly has never been welcome and no economic system can change that fundamental truth.

[johnnyanmac]

>Now they are running around like chickens with their heads cut off desperately trying to find some way to increase the value provided/decrease the value needed to stave off certain death.

Problem is who they are appealing to has different "value" than the actual users of the website. A classic problem of shareholder funded business. This is inevitable for stuff like ads but there are definitely ways to increase value that actual users would appreciate and at the very least shareholders would be neutral towards. Better moderation tools, for instance.

[saiojd]

I don't see your point, to be honest. This US government could easily afford to host Reddit. The reasons it does not are cultural, not economic.

[randomdata]

> This US government could easily afford to host Reddit.

I imagine the government has access to a lot more runway. Government is ideally suited to hosting capital intensive projects for that reason. But the piper needs to be paid eventually. Government isn't magical. It still has to deliver value in return for the value it takes.

This is not just theoretical. In the real world, governments that have failed to deliver sufficient value in return have fallen. In fact, that has happened many times throughout the ages. Government is a business like any other, only special in that you become an owner by virtue of citizenship.

Government is just people. It can't take, take, take without giving back any more than you or I can. For the US government to be able to afford to host Reddit long-term, it needs to start providing value that Reddit Inc. has been unable to find. What do you think they could do differently to start to deliver value?

> The reasons it does not are cultural, not economic.

I am not sure they are separable. Culture defines the economy. I agree that our broad culture sees little value in Reddit, giving no reason to bring it under the government watch – or to exist as a private business for that matter (hence the scrambling to try and change that). It is true that advertisers see some value, but not sufficiently so.

Reddit really backed themselves in a corner with respect to advertisers. The other social media giants realized that they had to make commercial users part of their core offering. I can promote my commerce all day long on those services for free and they're happy to point their users in my direction. Paid advertising just makes it better. Try doing the same on Reddit. You will be quickly banned for posting spam. That introduces a lot of friction in getting advertisers in the door, and also makes the paid ads that do make it onto the platform strangely bolted on the side, not a smooth part of the experience.

> no, but framing all aspect of life as a quantifiable trade, is

No. Such framing very much predates the invention of capitalism. Capitalism only speaks to a separation of ownership and labour. Nothing in this discussion relates to that.

[saiojd]

I understand better what you mean now. Clearly you've thought about this topic more than I have, so I don't think I can contribute much to the conversation unfortunately.

"It still has to deliver value in return for the value it takes.": To make sure I understand, how do you define 'value' exactly here?

"makes the paid ads that do make it onto the platform strangely bolted on the side, not a smooth part of the experience.": I guess for me that's the appeal in Reddit, in that it is not completely "consumerfied" yet. I feel like a Wikipedia-type management would be a much better fit for the end-user, but obviously it would be harder to collect donations to run Reddit than to run Wikipedia.

"I agree that our broad culture sees little value in Reddit": I agree, that's really the crux of it and it's too bad.

[randomdata]

> how do you define 'value' exactly here?

I suppose in the same way the dictionary does – the importance or worth of something.

When one has something they hold important, they won't want to give it up. If you expect others to continually give up something they deem important and not offer them anything in return (or only offer things they do not see as being as important), they are going to quickly grow disgruntled.

If the government took control of Reddit, it still needs people to operate. Not just developers, but people to build computers, people supplying power to run the servers, people providing connectivity, etc. along with other resources that people have. Generally, these people a high importance on their time and other resources. You need to offer something pretty compelling to get them to give it up – they will look for a fair trade.

That means other people need to give things up in return to make it a fair trade. Food is usually a pretty compelling offer. Most people will give up important things if you offer food[0] in exchange[1]. Is r/farming compelling enough to get farmers to give up their food for? Not likely.

Yes, a government can point a gun at their backs and tell them they must give up food to the workers at Reddit. And that might work for a while, but eventually they will become disgruntled as described before. "I'm slaving in the fields all day and all I get is a few minutes on r/farming before bed in return? That's not fair!" they will start to cry. This is when you'll start to see protests, conflict, and perhaps even a fall of government.

[0] Replace food/farmers with any other compelling good/service.

[1] In practice, you'll offer money. But remember money is just an IOU. Everyone will ultimately redeem a portion of the IOUs they collect for food.

> but obviously it would be harder to collect donations to run Reddit

Seems that way. Gold was effectively their attempt at that, but it doesn't appear to have amounted to much.

> I agree, that's really the crux of it and it's too bad.

Is it? Discussion forums are a commodity.

Reddit didn't do anything Usenet wasn't already doing 30 years earlier, other than providing a client with better UX. But arguably clients like Apollo provided even better UX than Reddit and, based on what came out of that drama, it appears Apollo was taking an even larger share of the net value than Reddit.