What’s with social media companies trying to destroy themselves recently? ( kbin.social )

It’s honestly really sad what’s been happening recently. Reddit with the API pricing on 3rd party apps, Discord with the new username change, Twitter with the rate limits, and Twitch with their new advertising rules (although that has been reverted because of backlash). Why does it seem like every company is collectively on a common mission of destroying themselves in the past few months?

I know the common answer is something around the lines of “because companies only care about making money”, but I still don’t get why it seems like all these social media companies have suddenly agreed to screw themselves during pretty much the period of March-June. One that sticks out to me especially is Reddit CEO, Huffman’s comment (u/spez), “We’ll continue to be profit-driven until profits arrive”. Like reading this literally pisses me off on so many levels. I wouldn’t even have to understand the context behind his comment to say, “I am DONE with you, and I am leaving your site”.

Why is it like this? Does everyone feel the same way? I’m not sure if it’s just me but everything seems to be going downhill these days. I really do hope there is a solution out of this mess.

Rabbithole ,

You're seeing a bubble burst.

The VC money is drying up and the current social media funding paradigm is breaking because of it.

It's a bit like witnessing the Dot Com bubble burst again tbh.

It's about time we moved on to a better way of doing things anyway, I'm pretty good with moving away from the old ad-based, exploit your community for profit model, personally.

GunnarRunnar ,

It'll be interesting if any of these "owned by the people" platforms will establish themselves the same way the private social media companies have in the past. Mastodon is probably most successful when it comes to a decentralized platform but it's not the there for me at the moment when it comes to the user base.

You can argue that it's not supposed to be Twitter or whatever but you can't deny the usefulness of everyone being an user under the same address or the wealth of information that comes with being giant. Decentralized platforms have an inherent handicap since there will always be moderation that's up to the admin so every instance will differ in some way (and let's not get to the technical problems that at least here are prevalent). It's harder for companies, countries and other official sources to establish themselves because they subject themselves to moderation of a private third party and jumping from instance to instance, forgoing the extra work it is, is just disruptive and confusing to their audience. They could always start their own instance but that's also a lot of work compared to just creating a Twitter account. There might be some business angle here though but it all just seems too convoluted at least for now.

Maybe internet will be just different and less-centralized in the future. At least it's good that the profit seeking private companies have less power.

thehatfox ,
@thehatfox@kbin.social avatar

The internet used to be more decentralised. There were lots of smaller websites, blogs, forums etc, which people discovered via word of mouth, search engines, and forgotten things like webrings. It's only recently that big monolithic social media platforms took hold.

Tech is often cyclical, we could now be swinging back to a more decentralised web, but with the benefit of newer technologies. Right now it's almost a new "wild west" as new platforms appear and new ideas like federation are experimented with. Some will rise, some will fall, some will go off in the corner and do their own thing. While all that happens it's going to be a bit messy, much like it was in the 90s with the initial rise of the web.

zhaosima ,

I hope you're right, sounds quite exciting!
Could you describe what "webrings" were? I've read about them in a similar thread, but couldn't find any info on them.

anon ,
@anon@kbin.social avatar

I’ve been online since circa 1993 and for the first decade or so, discoverability was a challenge due to the lack of efficient search engines like Altavista or (later) Google.

Webrings consisted in individual website owners (e.g., on Geocities) placing one or more banners at the bottom of their webpage linking to other like-minded sites, typically in quid-pro-quo manner (I link to you, you link back to me), or to a manually-curated directory of like-minded sites.

This was when “surfing the web” meant exactly that - you would surf from one site to another using hyperlinking within web communities. Bookmarking was then how you kept track of the most interesting sites you came across.

Now there is hardly a need for hyperlinking and bookmarking, since much of the content is centralized on a few platforms, and search engines take care of the discoverability of niche content.

cassetti ,

Phew I feel old remembering webrings lol. Crazy to think how much the internet has changed since those early days thirty years ago.

Anyone else remember Infoseek? It was my favorite search engine because you could select to search within results to refine your search down to a single page of relevant results.

knoland ,

those early days thirty years ago.

I misread this ad thirteen and though, “haha silly it was 20 years ago.” Then re-read it and realized it said thirty.

Then I had to go sit down for a minute and contemplate my impending demise.

psychopomp ,
@psychopomp@kbin.social avatar

[Thread, post or comment was deleted by the author]

    •
    zhaosima ,

    Thanks. I now realized, how I came to that conclusion: Last time this was discussed the person called it "link ring" and that didn't not yield any reasonable results.

    Edit: And because notifications for comment replies are deactivated by default I didn't even notice the person has corrected their wording. Still learning how to kbin :).

    elscallr ,
    @elscallr@kbin.social avatar

    Could you describe what "webrings" were?

    Oh god I feel old

    zhaosima ,

    It's ok, we're all gonna die.

    cassetti ,

    Getting old sucks, but everyone's doing it.

    Montagge ,
    @Montagge@kbin.social avatar

    Damn peer pressure!

    Raji_Lev ,
    @Raji_Lev@kbin.social avatar

    I feel like I should be yelling at those damned whippersnappers to get off my lawn, with all their Instagrams and Spotifies and Youtubes

    FaceDeer ,
    @FaceDeer@kbin.social avatar

    Also all the people who think Usenet is just an obscure piracy mechanism.

    Usenet was the greatest medium for discussion back in the early Internet days, and I'm excited that it's finally being recreated in the form of this Fediverse thing.

    haakon ,

    All the youngsters think federation is a brand new and exciting innovation. Time is a circle.

    unmarketableplushie ,
    @unmarketableplushie@pawb.social avatar

    So back when search engines were in their infancy, webrings were kinda a big deal. Essentially, they were collections of topic-related websites that agreed to mutually link to each other so that people could find content related to the pages that they were visiting. They kinda died out after Yahoo bought webring.org (where most webrings were controlled) and replaced all the webring control pages hosted there with Yahoo pages, and by the time they let go of the domain contemporary search engines had mostly rendered webrings obselete.

    However, there are definitely still webrings around. The official site of maia arson crimew (the hacktivist who made the news for leaking the no-fly list to select journalists) belongs to two webrings, for example. I can definitely see them making more of a comeback among computer enthusiasts if search engines enshittify themselves more.

    Stormy404 ,
    @Stormy404@kbin.social avatar

    interesting point

    GunnarRunnar ,

    Yeah, I was thinking the same thing while writing that comment. But I can't shake how cool it is to have every hobby, no matter how small or big, under the same roof, one click away. Someone should to make a search engine that serves this purpose and works well...

    HappySerf ,

    Man, wouldn't they make for a tempting advertising market?
    ...wait

    StenSaksTapir ,

    It's still early days.

    Reddit has been pretty good at not walling off content, but think of all the forums that died and went to hell, being tortured in the afterlife as a facebook group, where all the knowledge people spend time writing down, all the questions being answered, are trapped in the facebook ecosystem, where it's close to impossible to find. This is by design too I believe. I used to be a mod on a hardware forum and we had rules that you needed to search before asking. The opponents to this rule said, that if people just searched, then the forum would die out (it didn't) and I'm quite certain that information on facebook is hidden away, to keep engagement going, by having the same shit being asked and answered over and over in perpetuity.

    I like the idea of going back to forums, but with the added benefits of federation. It's the best of both worlds in my opinion.

    Bluetreefrog ,

    Yes! All of those interesting little nooks and crannies to explore. I'm glad that's coming back by way of the fediverse.

    Don't fear decentralization Millennials, embrace it.

    njordomir ,

    I miss the phpBB days. I was on some great forums and content was curated by people who were passionate about the topics. There were serious spaces, silly spaces, helpful spaces, and malevolent spaces. Google still did a decent job of surfacing real, user-generated content back then. You could always refine your search further to find niche information and that just doesn't work anymore. Everything is brand names and every company is trying to make their brand a verb.

    This recent rebellion between platforms and communities has been interesting to watch. Communities are not locations in cyberspace, they're still people. Now, with the fediverse, thanks to open-source developers and the kind souls who coughed up some dough for server costs, we now have more choices of where we congregate online. I love threaded topic-based conversations so something like this place is exactly where I want to be. I think this unrest may level out in our favor, but if there's a potential for evil, some arrogant jackass will take it, so I don't expect it'll be an easy journey. Enjoying the wild west feel you pointed out, very 90s!

    Niello ,

    On the other hand, I think Fediverse is perfect for companies that want to be closer to their customers, as rare as that may be.

    Another possible use case if Fediverse become popular enough is potential for companies like Nintendo setting up their own instance as the new Miiverse or something.

    sailsperson ,
    @sailsperson@kbin.social avatar

    I wouldn't count on big companies ever going that route, to be honest. The decision-making people there will likely never trust Lemmy or similar software enough because it's not like them - not proprietary, not closed source, so they'll keep wasting money on making their own shitty websites with their own shitty forums if they ever want to give their communities an official place to hang out.

    GunnarRunnar ,

    I can see it but there needs to be a big player first to set an example. Maybe it's Facebook or influencers suddenly flocking in. It won't be fast though.

    insomniac ,

    Do we want companies using Lemmy/kbin/mastodon to advertise to us? If it’s useless to them, that’s awesome

    JoeCoT ,
    @JoeCoT@kbin.social avatar

    Don't think of Mastodon like 1000 separate social media sites. Think of Mastodon, think of the Fediverse, like email. Lots of email goes through gmail, and maybe gmail works better with gmail. But email is more than gmail. But despite AOL's best efforts, despite google's best efforts, email is also yahoo, and outlook, and Proton, and MailChimp, and your college email address, and whatever mail server your company spun up, and if you feel like it whatever mail server you setup in your basement. And yes, email has had more complications over the years as google tries to strangle it. But it's the real open platform, and the Fediverse can join it.

    anon ,
    @anon@kbin.social avatar

    I agree that investors requiring demonstrable returns has played a role in this cycle. Steve Huffman is desperate to show profits ahead of Reddit’s IPO, and Musk is desperate to recoup his $44B investment in the blue bird.

    However, I believe that there’s also another consideration. Many of today’s platforms started out with a somewhat idealistic intent. Jack Dorsey wanted Twitter to be an open protocol, though never quite achieved his vision. Aaron Swartz contributed to the open design of early-days Reddit. Facebook was meant as a non-profit university community builder. Google had (and abandoned) a “do no evil” motto. Etc.

    The original user-first approach of these platforms created organic growth and encouraged ambassadorship by motivated users who became frequent contributors, unpaid moderators, etc.

    Over time, however, people moved on (Dorsey, or very sadly Swartz) or got greedy from success (Huffman, Zuckerberg). The focus shifted from user-first to advertiser-first. Platforms like Reddit still used a loss-leader approach of losing investor money on frills such as API because it helped sustain growth for a while longer.

    But once critical mass was reached, there was no longer a need to coddle the most enthusiastic and long-time users. They had exhausted their usefulness. The platforms could finally embrace the advertiser-first model in which the user, not the content, becomes the product.

    So here we are with the worst of both worlds. Reddit could have offered a reasonable paid API plan that would have allowed the thriving third-party ecosystem to retain the power users and contributors. Instead, it went all-in with a walled-garden approach buoyed only by advertising money, even if it means that the content quality dwindles. Twitter also went “private” in the sense that an account is now required to even view the content, and aggressively promotes its paid plan to users –who are still subject to interstitial ads and promoted content– even for basic hygiene features such as 2FA.

    As for why Reddit, Twitter, and Discord shit the bed at almost the same time, part of it has to do with VC pressure (as mentioned by the parent), and part of it is they are the same generation (more or less) of social networks and are reaching an equivalent stage where buyout (Twitter) or IPO (Reddit) is the next logical step.

    The writing is on the wall that a paradigm shift is in order. The pendulum has considerable momentum, though, and will allow the centralized, walled-garden web to thrive for a while longer, just like Facebook survives catering to mostly an audience of unsavvy boomers. But the swing back will gradually enable alternative models to grow that are based on open platforms and federated content. We’re just very, very early in this cycle.

    Oh, and sorry for the long-ass essay, I got a bit carried away.

    Robotoboy ,
    @Robotoboy@kbin.social avatar

    Yeah this. We're all boarding the ship before it sails out for new lands. It'll be a bit before we finally depart... but it's nice to get a cozy seat here while the city we've been living in begins it's chaotic descent into what MySpace became lol.

    argv_minus_one ,

    Facebook survives catering to mostly an audience of unsavvy boomers.

    That’s pretty ironic, considering Facebook originally catered exclusively to the opposite demographic: college students.

    Duskfox OP ,
    @Duskfox@kbin.social avatar

    It's about time we moved on to a better way of doing things anyway, I'm pretty good with moving away from the old ad-based, exploit your community for profit model, personally.

    Yes, you're exactly right with that. Even if Reddit at the moment lacks a major competitor which actually threatens to take its place but rather, numerous smaller competitors, I guess the resultant peace that comes with everyone being divided after fleeing the website is something that I can't deny I have been real happy with. I have found this peace through coming to Kbin. If it stays small, I will continue to enjoy this peace, and if it actually overtakes Reddit, then let us be known as the veterans of Kbin/Lemmy.

    Noahv ,

    Maybe I'm wrong, but maintaining Reddit infrastructure seems pretty cheap to me as most of the contents are words only.

    Rabbithole ,

    That used to be true until they made the insane move of self-hosting all of the images and videos using i.reddit and v.reddit rather than continuing the previous practice of everyone posting all of the media to imgur and youtube, etc.

    They just had to own everything themselves, even if it meant giving themselves running costs that would inevitably climb to youtube-like expenses because of all of the media streaming.

    Pure madness.

    NekoKamiGuru ,
    @NekoKamiGuru@kbin.social avatar

    The money Reddit got from TenCent is starting to run out and TenCent is wanting a return on their investment. So Reddit will tighten the screws and monetize harder because the board demands it.

    kutch ,

    Exactly... pressure from boards to monetize and CEOs being told to do it but whose skills that got them there don't transfer

    tal ,
    @tal@kbin.social avatar

    The way a lot of dot-com startups work, they have high fixed costs -- stuff you pay no matter how many users you have, like programmers -- and low marginal costs, stuff you pay based on how many users you have.

    That means that it's good to be big, because you can spread those fixed costs over many, many users. One programmer writing software used by five hundred million users can make a lot more money than software used by five users. The resulting effect is called economy of scale.

    So the typical model is to take in a lot of investor money, operate at a loss, and lose money while offering a very compelling service to grow the userbase as quickly as possible.

    Once you're big enough, you can spread your costs around many users, so it's easier to make money. You switch from growing your userbase to making money from it. Because you aren't trying as hard as possible to draw in new users, the service is probably gonna get worse from a user standpoint.

    If money becomes tight, then it's harder to get investor dollars to operate at a loss with to grow userbase.

    My understanding is that due to elevated interest rates in the post-COVID-19 situation, it's more-costly to get investment money. So that will tend to push companies from the "growth" phase to the "monetization" phase.

    That affects a bunch of companies, including Reddit.

    GataZapata ,

    Excellent writeup

    Steeltooth493 ,
    @Steeltooth493@kbin.social avatar

    "That means that it's good to be big, because you can spread those fixed costs over many, many users. One programmer writing software used by five hundred million users can make a lot more money than software used by five users. So the typical model is to take in a lot of investor money, operate at a loss, and lose money while offering a very compelling service to grow the userbase as quickly as possible.
    Once you're big enough, you can spread your costs around many users, so it's easier to make money. You switch from growing your userbase to making money from it. Because you aren't trying as hard as possible to draw in new users, the service is probably gonna get worse from a user standpoint."

    This kind of reminds me of how Legos are made. Creating the plastic molds from a molding machine to make a single Lego is extremely expensive, but if you make millions of Legos in mass production it reduces costs to make them dramatically to a point where the Lego Group has basically no operating costs to make them anymore. That turns Legos into an investor's dream.

    paper_clip ,
    @paper_clip@kbin.social avatar

    if you make millions of Legos in mass production it reduces costs to make them dramatically to a point where the Lego Group has basically no operating costs to make them anymore

    That's how economies of scale work in general, across many, many industries.

    On a somewhat related note, your Lego example is more gloriously intricate than you may realize. So, you're spend a lot of money to make a machine to produce Legos at close to zero cost. What happens if someone the next city over thinks they can make a better machine and undercut you?

    One way to protect yourself is with the law. You set up intellectual property protection for your Legos and sue everyone who makes "Lehos". This works for a while.

    But problems come up. Intellectual property protections have a time limit. They also have a jurisdiction limit, as some guys in a different country, say, Xhina, don't respect your country's laws and start making those Lehos.

    What do you do? How does your company survive?

    Well, you can leverage the other valuable part of your company, the brand reputation, to do things that Lehos can't, like make deals with other intellectual property holders to make themed Lego sets. So, you strike deals with Disney to make Star Wars and MCU sets, with Warner Brothers for those Harry Potter designs, with Microsoft/Mojang for Minecraft Legos (because they're a perfect fit). That's something that some random plastic injection mold company in China can't do. You're motherfucking Legos, not dipshit Lehos. You can do that, as well as open company stores and theme parks that are tourist destinations.

    So, Legos survives, and not just that, but prospers.

    Pandantic ,
    @Pandantic@kbin.social avatar

    Then why they so expensive tho?

    Montagge ,
    @Montagge@kbin.social avatar

    Greed

    DeepFriedDresden ,

    Actual Legos are fairly cheap. You can get a box of 790 for $60, which is like $0.07 per Lego. The expensive sets are the licensed sets. They pay for that licensing fee somewhere. A Star Wars themed republic fighter tank is $40 with 262 pieces, which comes to about $0.15 per piece.

    Definitely some greed in there but when you're a recognized brand with the ability to license you can get away with that because you already have the contracts so nobody can compete.

    fearout ,
    @fearout@kbin.social avatar

    This is a great write up, but what I don’t get is why do these companies stick to these idiotic measures instead of turning to their users for help in an open dialogue.

    Like, I get that Reddit needs to make profit, and I actually wouldn’t have minded paying for Reddit premium to use my api key with Apollo. Instead Reddit made me and I’d guess a lot of people like me leave and never want to return. Just left with a lingering bitter aftertaste.

    Did they think that they wouldn’t get enough funding that way? Well then how about giving it a test run to see if it works? Didn’t work? Well how about asking your users what they might be missing and what they might want to be more happy to subscribe, and adding features/addressing those issues? Working with developers to establish a revenue sharing agreement? There were so many alternative paths.

    No, apparently nfts and shitting on your users is where it’s at.

    Have a conversation, run polls, A/B test, etc. And be transparent while you’re doing it. These tools are nothing new when developing a service. Why ignore everything?

    I mean, is it really just a competence/arrogance thing alone?

    sailsperson ,
    @sailsperson@kbin.social avatar

    I think it's more of an ego thing. The people with healthy egos probably never end up as execs in companies as big as Reddit, and the people that do are likely driven by something else other than the desire to actually build a platform that respects its users and works well in cooperation with them - "I'm smart, I'm sexy, I know better than these plebs making us money".

    blivet , (edited )
    @blivet@kbin.social avatar

    Yeah, there seems to be an inflection point in the lifecycle of businesses nowadays where the leadership loses any interest in what the company actually does. The products it makes or services it provides are considered almost irrelevant.

    Duskfox OP ,
    @Duskfox@kbin.social avatar

    Exactly this. Companies like Reddit these days are so disconnected with their userbase it's insane. Of all the millions of things Reddit could do to make their platform a better place, they choose to basically remove the services that everyone liked (the 3rd party apps) and not only that, lie to their users (as with the case of Apollo "blackmailing Reddit for $10 million") and double down on them. It sickens me how ignorant they can be, but I guess that the hard lesson we can all take away is that with money and power comes corruption.

    Have a conversation, run polls, A/B test, etc. And be transparent while you’re doing it. These tools are nothing new when developing a service. Why ignore everything?

    I mean, based on how dramatic the increasing in price the API was, I wouldn't be surprised if Reddit already knew what the public reaction would be, considering they'll probably also receive considerable hate for even contemplating the decision. Of course they just didn't give a second thought and just went with it.

    cheeseOnBread ,

    I stopped using reddit after spez's AmA. If all of this would have been handled in a more mature and open way, I would probably have moved to the reddit app, complained about it for a while, but kept usind reddit. But after what happened in the last weeks, reddit is no longer something I want to be associated with.
    For lack of a better description, I simply don't 'like' reddit anymore. It's like a friend who treated you like shit.. Sure, you could still go to a party together and have fun, but it's just not quite the same anymore.

    It's not so much about what they did, most people understand reddit has to make money at some point. It's the how that is driving people away imho. At least it is for me.

    Pandantic ,
    @Pandantic@kbin.social avatar

    considering they'll probably also receive considerable hate for even contemplating the decision.

    Honestly, when Christian first brought up “maybe subscriptions for Apollo to offset API costs,” I was fine with that. I get that we were receiving a service for free that cost the company money, and I was fine with paying a reasonable amount for that. I just don’t get why they had to make the costs so unreasonable that even subscription based wouldn’t cut it.

    Otome-chan ,
    @Otome-chan@kbin.social avatar

    I mean after the whole "spez shadow-edited someone else's comment to put words in their mouth" thing, what you're describing sounds a bit too ethical for reddit as a company.

    ExistentialOverloadMonkey ,

    This is not true in most cases.
    It's not about being profitable, it's about always making more and more and more and more - the so-called growth.

    Let's take the case of reddit inc. Their revenue grew from just $25 million in 2016 to over $500 million in 2022. If they can't make a profit with that, I don't know what to say (I'd say the leadership buys a new ferrari every month, probably).
    According to this thread, reddit operating costs were around $35k dollars back in 2011. Even if you were to multiply that by a factor of 10, it's still just a couple million dollars per year. Multiply it by 100, and still
    They. Are. Fucking. Profitable. As. Fuck.

    No, the problem is not profitability and paying the bills. Fuck no. The problem is them wanting more than what is remotely reasonable, and of u/spez being a greedy fucking pig and wanting not simply a big, but instead a spectacular cashout in their coming IPO. Well, fuck the greedy little pig boy and fuck reddit.

    Balssh ,

    Basically late-stage capitalism

    ExistentialOverloadMonkey ,

    Aye.

    Stormy404 ,
    @Stormy404@kbin.social avatar

    bingo.

    FaceDeer ,
    @FaceDeer@kbin.social avatar

    For some reason Reddit has 2000 employees. That's a huge expense. If I were in charge of Reddit, I think the first thing I'd be doing is conducting those "Exactly what would you say you do here" interviews and figuring out why something that should be a relatively simple and mature forum website needs so many people working on it.

    tal ,
    @tal@kbin.social avatar

    Lemme add a bit more to my above comment.

    Social media companies are especially doing this whiplash switch from aiming for growing the userbase to making money. And for them, there is another factor that makes it even more important to use money for growth when it is available -- network effect. Basically, for certain services, the role of the service is to facilitate communication between their users. While it's not quite true that all users are equally-likely to communicate with each other -- an elderly user who only speaks Italian and a schoolboy in Kansas who only speaks English might not have a lot of desire to communicate -- in general, users of the service get their value from the service by communicating with each other and each additional user is one more person with whom a user can communicate. This means that it's much more-desirable to use a service with a large userbase than one with a small one, because you can communicate with others. The value of the service as a whole, if everyone were equally likely to communicate with everyone else, rises roughly as the square of the number of users. That's because the value to each user is proportional to the number of users that they can talk to, and that is true for every user -- multiply one by the other, and the value of the service as a whole is proportional to the square of the userbase size.

    Social media work by connecting members of their userbase. So for them, they have a huge incentive to use money for growth whenever they can get a hold of it as far as they can.

    The services that are especially likely to respond to capital being cheaply available are companies that have a business model that does this, even moreso than a typical dot-com. And sure enough -- Twitter, Reddit, and YouTube derive their value from connecting members of their userbase, rely on network effect as well as economies of scale. And just as they dive really deeply into spending cheap money to grow when they could, when money ceases to be really cheaply available, so they will have further to swim out when it ceases to be.

    Madison_rogue ,
    @Madison_rogue@kbin.social avatar

    My understanding is that due to elevated interest rates in the post-COVID-19 situation, it's more-costly to get investment money. So that will tend to push companies from the "growth" phase to the "monetization" phase.

    This is basic economics. Increased interest rates mean companies will pay more for every dollar they borrow. This includes venture capital. Cheap borrowing is one of the reasons real estate values skyrocketed over the course of the past generation. Cheap money increased demand, and inflated costs. Do this long enough (maybe an economic collapse or recession between), and the house you bought in 1980 for $50k is now worth $400k.

    Every company utilizes borrowing a lot more than you might think. From infrastructure, to payroll, borrowing money plays part in most activities of a company. It's pretty complex.

    Robotoboy ,
    @Robotoboy@kbin.social avatar

    Silicon Valley is feeling the backlash of not being able to deliver on their promise. The entire sector has been funded off the promise of forever growth, inflated valuations based on easily manipulated numbers and the concept that tech is the future.

    Which yeah, tech IS the future - but it's not the future because some sociopathic individuals are good at social engineering.

    It's a panic. Musk never intended to buy Twitter but was essentially forced to... and has ego issues. So instead of allowing it to function and making edits to the business model (that was already failing) he has simply shown that he has no idea how to run a Social Media platform. So he tries to exert force on his userbase so that he can monetize them. Reddit's CEO sees this powerplay, and that a vast majority of Twitters userbase stuck around, and didn't immediately leave, and decided to play the bullish part as well. Twitch has always suffered operating at a loss, so I can only assume Daddy Amazon has forced them to start making bigger changes to make a profit finally. Discord... well Discord is still mostly in its infancy. It's not completely a dominating force in the industry and it knows it. That's way their changes come much more incrementally.

    If it's one thing you'll notice about big tech, it's that they have always operated at a loss. They grew, and their services kept expanding because Venture Capital kept coming in at the promise of this future mythical profit. Their model was never sustainable though.

    The number one lesson to learn from all this is that investments are just a game for the rich... and I'm going to be real, they're often just as stupid as your average moron.

    Moving on to the ActivityPub protocol will be for the good of everyone. It's a bit of a return to the old net... We lose some convenience for the benefit of freedom.

    So yeah, they'll continue to make stupid decisions and ruin their companies... but keep in mind that ActivityPub and the Fediverse isn't immune to these sociopaths. We may well see a well funded VC backed venture that uses the protocol.

    We'll just have to see how this holds out.

    Roundcat ,
    @Roundcat@kbin.social avatar

    We are at the end of the "free lunch" era of tech. Before, there was a lot of investment in tech because it was very easy for rich people to get loans, and sink it into tech companies or startups. With inflation at its high pace, banks failing, (esp. CV bank for our case) and the hike of interest rates, many tech companies are trying to make up the loss of revenue in anyway they can. Either by cutting staff and laying off people, or squeezing every dime out of every customer they can.

    Before it was just accepted that some users would not monetarily engage with a platform, either by just lurking, blocking ads, mooching off a friend's account, or never buying any of the monetary perks being offered. Now they are doing their best to apply pressure to these people. Either they will go away entirely, and not expend anymore of the company's resources, or they will cave and put some money into the system by making purchases and consuming ads.

    This has been growing trend since late last year, but this year in particular has caught many tech companies with their pants down. The days of burning free money for tech are over, and they are trying to scrounge together cash by any means necessary.

    Bendersmember ,
    @Bendersmember@kbin.social avatar

    Solid point. One thing that these companies will realize quickly if they plan to move from ad based to subscription services is that a lot of them won't make it. Especially when the price of everything is so high. It no feasible for people to sub to 8 streaming services between film and music, add on a VPN, the odd Patreon, lots of people with ring and other camera and security subscriptions. I get that people will shuffle between services, but that might not be enough, and the more they go for the customers throat, the more likely people will realize it's a want and nowhere near a need.

    thehatfox ,
    @thehatfox@kbin.social avatar

    Successfully monetising a platform means doing it in harmony with the the user base though, at least to some degree. A platform can't make money from users if it scares them all away. Social media platforms are especially vulnerable too because they rely on users to create their content. Nobody comes to Twitter to marvel at the system infrastructure, they come to read tweets.

    The way certain tech companies are behaving currently is too knee-jerk and heavy handed. They are panicking and damaging their platforms in the process.

    May ,
    @May@kbin.social avatar

    I rlly feel like 2023 is a year of a lot of things coming to light. Not just because of this but there was some stuff that happened earlier in the year and i got the impression that that'd be the 'theme' for this year (it feels like since 2020 every year has a 'theme' in some way.) This isnt super related tho but i feel like if there was any doubt that these companies are profit driven and WILL put that above user experiences, even if only for pennies, is largely been confirmed this year.

    Jaysyn ,
    @Jaysyn@kbin.social avatar

    No idea, but I'm here to help them finish the job.

    Deathsauce ,
    @Deathsauce@kbin.social avatar

    It's the age of Techtalitarianism. They've become more brazen and less discreet in the fact they want everyone to pay to access what has become an essential communication method. Soon enough, the "free" aspect of social media will be on par with a video game demo. One or two levels (or features in this instance), certain amount of posting and reading privileges per day, just enough to get a feel for the real thing hidden behind an increasingly hefty paywall.

    HuskyTranslator ,
    @HuskyTranslator@kbin.social avatar

    It's the inevitable enshitification of platforms due to capitalism, explained here: https://pluralistic.net/2023/01/21/potemkin-ai/#hey-guys better than I ever could

    TacoButtPlug ,
    @TacoButtPlug@kbin.social avatar

    @HuskyTranslator this really did a fantastic detailed postmortem

    chamim ,
    @chamim@kbin.social avatar

    Both Twitter and Reddit have failed to become profitable. And Twitter's in a far worse position right now than Reddit, because of its massive debt and lack of employees to fix or moderate issues. And since Reddit, who never had to pay for moderation, could not become profitable, it had to make some drastic changes toward that goal. Even if that dissatisfies users.

    I was on Reddit for almost 10 years when I deleted my account. And while the platform will survive, it's difficult to say the same about Twitter. Not only was it a far worse experience to be on the platform after Musk acquired it, but now it's almost impossible to use it. People paying for the subscription have fewer issues, but I doubt that's going to drive up subscriptions, as Musk most probably expects.

    orcrist ,

    Twitter's rate limiting has been reported as perhaps being a failure to pay bills or otherwise properly manage their servers, and not some specific policy change. So that particular example might not be what you were focusing on or what you meant to focus on. Obviously Twitter made many other decisions, and the recent big one is cutting off access to tweets for people who are not logged in.

    As for Reddit, the price of the API is not the point. Rather, the price is so high that nobody's going to use the API, and that's the point. But they want to pretend that it's still possible to be used. And we know this is true because if the API really has such high value, then presumably some of the popular clients out there would have been worth it for Reddit to purchase, and the purchase price would presumably have some correlation to API usage.

    On a more general level, though, I think what you're talking about is the process known as "enshittification". It's possible for social media companies to avoid this end result, but it requires great care especially in the early stages.

    Duskfox OP ,
    @Duskfox@kbin.social avatar

    As for Reddit, the price of the API is not the point. Rather, the price is so high that nobody's going to use the API, and that's the point.

    Yea ik that I just didn't wanna make my post too long haha.

    On a more general level, though, I think what you're talking about is the process known as "enshittification".

    Spot on.

    ozmanthus ,

    It’s advertising revenue collapsing and people realizing you can’t just run things for free. I am fine with not having these things if it means I get digital privacy

    Aesculapius ,
    @Aesculapius@kbin.social avatar

    As users of these platforms, you are not the customer, you are the product. Your attention, your eyeballs, your information. That product is sold to the real customers - advertising agencies, marketing groups, retail companies, service companies, etc. Now that production of that product has gone through the design phase and scale up, it's time to monetize.

    The real issue with Reddit didn't have anything to do wtih API rates. It had to do with product value. Third party apps don't carry through their ads, thus reducing their value to their customers (again, not you). Moving NSFW subs, which significantly increases their product (you), increases the value to their customers. If they were going to allow third party apps to exist, they desire recompense for the dilution in value, hence the high API costs.

    This is the future of centralized web services.

    theinspectorst ,
    @theinspectorst@kbin.social avatar

    I know the common answer is something around the lines of “because companies only care about making money”, but I still don’t get why it seems like all these social media companies have suddenly agreed to screw themselves during pretty much the period of March-June.

    It seems like the proximate trigger for many of these decisions has been the rise of ChatGPT at the end of last year. Before this, they saw the best way to monetise their platforms as being about encouraging new content to create new clicks for advertising revenue. Since ChatGPT, they realised they're all sitting on goldmines of old content that could be used to train their own AI models - so suddenly they're prepared to take a range of seemingly-mad actions that will harm the quality and quantity of new content being created, because they think they've got enough revenue-generating potential from the existing content.

    Of course the problem here is that a) they're killing the golden goose - monetising the back book while degrading the new content means they can only do this once, so they better hope it works and makes them a shit load of money, whilst b) although there's loads of potential in AI, we're yet to see someone actually make money through it and it has the potential to be a huge bubble where the hype eventually dissipates and the market collapses upon itself, with only a handful of players making it through unscathed to become the big success story.

    All of these social media companies are betting the future of their platforms on them being the one that makes it through the AI bubble. Most of them will fail.

    FaceDeer ,
    @FaceDeer@kbin.social avatar

    Another potential problem with trying to monetize off the back of AI is that AI is such a rapidly developing technology that there's no guarantee that their stashes of data will actually be all that vital. There's been a tendency lately toward training AI with a smaller but more highly refined and curated data set rather than just shoveling vast quantities of text at them, for example.

    Edwardo_Elric ,

    It's called enshittification of platforms. The article is not about Reddit, but applies just as well.

    Phanatik ,

    I don't think Discord's username change is on the same level as what Twitter and Reddit have done. It's annoying for sure but it's not as harmful. It's not like the username change prevents you from using it.

    fearout ,
    @fearout@kbin.social avatar

    Yeah, I missed out on that outrage. What are people disliking so much about that?

    I remember seeing that pop up, realizing that all this time I just had some generic username with my name and numbers, and changing it to my usual username. Were there some negative consequences to the service in general?

    Phanatik ,

    I personally haven't seen anything negative apart from the same issue people would have on other platforms and that's running into the issue that the name you want has been taken and you have to keep changing it until you get the one you want.

    Duskfox OP ,
    @Duskfox@kbin.social avatar

    Yea ik that, I still wanted to mention it though to get my point across that companies are simply deteriorating the user experiences of their own platforms. Even as a Discord user myself, it doesn't bother me that much but my point stands.

    Phanatik ,

    I guess my contention is what you mean by the username change deteriorating the user experience. How does it do that? It's the name you log in with and the default nickname you have until you change it for each server. I'm missing the part where the username change makes the discord experience worse.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • random
  • [email protected]
  • All magazines
    •