More disturbingly bad pop psychology misdiagnosis of the "social media" problem ...

> "The mainstream social internet is so big; everyone is connected to everyone, over a billion on Facebook alone. The consequences of connection — fake news, radicalization, massive targeted harassment campaigns, algorithmically-generated psychological torment, inane bullshit — were not part of what we were sold."
theverge.com/2017/12/28/167950

I agree all these things are bad, but they're not new, and they're definitely not "consequences of connection", but the consequences of corporate-owned media, ad-based revenue model, and political bitterness caused by rising inequality. We migrated to the net in the 90s because the same perfect storm had hopelessly warped TV, and we naively thought the net might be different.

All the pearl-clutching and hand-wringing over weird YT kids videos makes we wonder if any of these people ever saw kids TV? I well remember the terrifyingly weird psy-op tactics advertisers used to prime kids to use "pester power", both in the "programs" themselves (remember Transformers and Masters of the Universe toys and their "TV shows") as well as in the ad breaks between them.

The good news is, it's still much cheaper and easier to set up a webserver or any other kind of internet server for ourselves, individually or as a community, than it has ever been to set up a micro-radio ("pirate radio") or micro-TV ("pirate TV") broadcast. I helped set up some micro-radio stations in early 2000s, so I'm speaking from experience here. Plus, servers can do a much greater range of things, and any webserver has much greater potential reach than local radio or TV (cool as they are)

Imagine a federated platform like that replace for distributing podcasts. It would have all the benefits of pirate radio (or ); diverse voices, a plurality of sources, decentralized production and consumption, plus all the benefits of iTunes; any podcaster can potentially heard by anyone in a global audience, and without the downsides of a platform controlled by a single gatekeeper like Apple corporation.

@strypey It would miss one extremely popular feature for creators, accurate analytics.

@moonman not necessarily. There are plenty of analytics packages ( etc) that could be built in or integrated using plug-ins.
opensource.com/article/18/1/to

@moonman also, I believe is building in the ability to do accurate view counts and some replacement for 'likes' across a federated platform, which could be re-used for a podcasting platform

@strypey @moonman Not sure how a federated platform really could accurately count views, as any of the nodes could be lying. As far as I can see, it works require some Bitcoin like leger of each view to be verifiable. That would be prohibitive though, as views are much more voluminous than transactions in BTC.

@Blort @moonman the same way
> Not sure how a federated platform really could accurately count views

the same way any other network of trackers do?

@strypey @moonman

Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems like a different problem to me. I mean, if you want to confirm another node has a bit of a file, all them to send it over and confirm the hash, sure.

If you ask how many views they've served for a video, how to confirm when they tell it's 10,000? This is more like asking #BitTorrent how many times a file has ever been downloaded by everyone, than how many seeders there are or similar. Does BitTorrent show that?

@Blort @moonman my understanding is that a tracker can identify leachers who never seed, and give them lower priority on downloads than users who do seed. I'm not sure how the tech works though, and it could be I'm totally wrong. Some discussion here:
superuser.com/questions/211264

@strypey @moonman

What is nice, is that by #PeerTube using #BitTorrent, it benefits from the no-doubt large amount of work already done there to prevent spoofing. It just seems though that there would be a bit less of a financial incentive for people to bother spoofing seed/leech ratios than view counts. If PeerTube really took off, I suspect that it would encourage the spoofers to get more determined and force new anti spoofing measures to be introduced.

@Blort @moonman given that I don't think intends to build in monetization, leaving that to third parties like , etc, I think view counts will only matter on PT about as much as they do on vanilla BitTorrent. Who really pays attention to view counts anyway (I don't even look at them unless I have a specific reason). Totally agree that working with mature protocol is good, as there's a large base of existing protocol implementers who can help solve spoofing issues.

@strypey @moonman

Regardless of what #PeerTube code, view count, demographics and engagement will always be important to full time content creators. They're the most important factors to sponsors and advertisers who, like it or not, pay for the vast majority of content creation today.

I'd love to see socially minded alternatives (eg Liberapay) baked in, but sadly there's ample evidence that these alone aren't competitive to fund large scale content creation.

@strypey @moonman

Yes, we can say "screw advertisers and sponsors. Let's keep the PeerTube's platform pure and away from that stuff", however without them, PeerTube loses most of the funding for content creators, and thus most of the content, viewers and social impact. It's essentially saying we'd rather give most potential cultural influence to #YouTube rather than accept #advertising. Satisfying, but ineffective. It's the niche Puritan dilemma.

Follow

@Blort @moonman online advertising is a zombie business model. Ads, like phone books and TV guides, existed to solve problems the web solves better. Which is why platforms that try it eventually end up turning to fulltime datafarming (see: blogs.harvard.edu/doc/the-adbl).

@strypey @moonman @blort Online advertising exists because (1) advertisers want to sell product, (2) advertising networks want to sell ads, (3) sites that host ads want to generate some revenue without selling any products or services of their own.

The problem is that almost no one clicks on an ad and buys a product or service. So advertisers and ad networks tried getting more aggressive (pop-ups, pop-unders, slide-overs, interstitials, flashing, moving, speaking), but sites found that those tactics drive people away from their sites, reducing ad revenue.

The switch to personalized data collection and exploitation is because advertising failed to meet expectations.

@lnxw48a1 @moonman @Blort
> The problem is that almost no one clicks on an ad and buys a product or service.

Yes, but underlying that is the problem that websites accepted pay-per-click models that newspapers, radio, and TV never had to. If they had just kept their powder dry, and waited until the web was obviously getting more eyeballs that those three combined, a) they could have insisted on pay-per-display and b) better business models for funding websites may have got out ahead of ads

@lnxw48a1 @moonman @Blort also 1) advertisers could have been sold their own websites, instead of patches of space on other people's pages, 2) ad networks could have pivoted to selling website services (and many now have), 3) websites could have insisted on pay-per-display, or sold commercial website services as a side hussle, and probably made more money that way without creating

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Mastodon - NZOSS

This Mastodon instance is provided gratis by the NZ Open Source Society for the benefit of everyone interested in their own freedom and sharing with others. Hosting is generously provided by Catalyst Cloud right here in Aotearoa New Zealand.