I don't use Twitter, but the last week since Elon Musk become the owner, the conversation has got far more interesting, as people "rebel" against the idea of having to pay for the privilege of getting verified, with famous and wealthy people threatening to quit the platform over a potential $20 monthly fee for the blue verification checkmark. Which is interesting, as essentially, that blue verified mark is the thing that protects the rich and famous from people impersonating them on Twitter, a place that they use as a platform to peddle their own wares and agendas.
Entitlement.
But this is part of a bigger problem, where people believe that social platforms should be provided in their entirety for free. If there is some subscription paywall of separation of experience, people complain that it is unfair to those who can't afford it. If there is no paywall, people complain about the amount of spam and scam, and all those ads -
But ads are better than paying.
Well, until tech solutions can block the ads, so then it is free and the adverts are heavily limited. Then people complain because the share price of the social platform they have bought into because it is so compelling to use, has the ass drop out of it like Facebook has.
The average consumer, rich or poor, very much embody the "have the cake and eat it too" mentality and approach to life, expecting not only that what they use brings them far more value than they put into it, but that they want that value without having to put anything in at all.
I think we are familiar with this on Hive.
What people will have to start coming to terms with is, the idea of the "free internet" has been dead for a long time, but how it has been getting financed is through ad revenue models. But, because of this for click and time on site modelling, a whole range of negative outcomes have eventuated, from the bombardment of advertising, to the death of journalism in favor of clickbait stories. Not to mention the continual targeting of children in ways that has fundamentally weakened their potential.
Now, other than paying the bills, the reasoning for introducing the fee for verification means that it is far easier to then manage and filter for spam and scam, because once there is a cost of what is "verified account creation", there is a cost to getting banned, so better behave.
We have seen this on Hive (Steem) also, where at one stage (oldies might remember) there were bot armies of accounts using the starting HP to milk the platform, without one group of 10,000+ accounts, taking out over 20,000 STEEM a month.
Ah... those were the days - Let's get rid of resource credits and the dust threshold and go back to that model!
But on Hive, there is really no cost to the account creation, so what keeps them in check is that in order to spam, some resource credits are needed, which means powering up some HIVE - now, it doesn't take much, but there is very little incentive to actually spam the chain now, as earnings aren't going to happen and rewards can be taken away.
But, Twitter has around 230M monthly users, so the scale of their issue is a bit different, as is the scale of the spam and scam, as well as the trolling. However, as it is such a "public" platform, it is used and relied upon by many people to support their own livelihoods who will defend its usage, but still complain about how other people use it, even though them themselves, when given the option for an improved experience through subscription, are unwilling to open their wallet. Yet the same people are willing to subscribe to other entertainment services that provide them no potential for return whatsoever, like Netflix.
Why is there a mental division between entertainment platform?
Well, I think it is because for a couple decades now, the advertising model has fundamentally changed the way we think about these applications we use, by hiding the true costs. However, I think that one of the things that Web 3 platforms and services are going to do is deliver clarity on the costs through more transparent and direct transactions and relationships.
While people used to complain about the cost of accounts on Hive (they are available for free from many places), what they fail to see is that one of the fundamental differences between what they are paying for here and on Twitter is, on Hive you own your account. You are reserving a little piece of the blockchain that is always yours and with a little HIVE, you are able to use that account as you see fit. This doesn't mean that you won't meet resistance to your behavior, but that account is yours.
Once an account is registered on Hive, it is verified and protected by the chain, meaning that it can never be banned or taken away. Yes, an interface can choose to hide what it writes to the chain, but as long as it has the resources, it can write as it pleases. This is a fundamental difference that other people are only just starting to realize has some value. And this is what the Twitter conversation is starting to explore,
What does digital ownership mean?
It is about resources and assets, as well as skin in the game and what Twitter and Musk are going to discover, is that it is not easy to get people to pay for what they see as part of their fundamental human rights. People believe they have the right to be on a platform like Twitter and to say what they want not only without consequence, but without having a price to pay of any kind.
Have cake. Eat cake.
It isn't a right, it is a privilege.
And privileges are granted or paid for.
And as they say, there is no such thing as a free meal, so when they are "granted for free", there is a cost somewhere. Paying for the privilege grants access of some kind, like a ticket to the movies and when it happens on social media, people say it is not fair. Yet, when was the last time you went to the cinema and said that it wasn't fair that you could see the movie, but all the other people who can't afford the ticket can't? What about all the people who can't afford a Netflix subscription?
It isn't fair!
The world of media is changing rapidly and I think what Twitter and the other platforms are going to find is, they have painted themselves into a corner, where one wall is the tyranny of reliance on an advertising model and the other, made of the expectations and entitlements of their user base who have been conditioned to believe that they aren't paying for their usage. Upsetting the balance on either side is catastrophic, but survival demands it.
A catch-22.
The digital world is pivoting. About time.
Taraz
[ Gen1: Hive ]
