Nostr Web Client

Why was it a mistake? How else would you structure the people that provide the best (subjective) content that others want to follow?

Guy Swann 2y ago 💬 2

If I had to argue in the negative, I could say it could shift focus from what is the best content, to the network effect of what *other people are looking at.*

Seems pretty easy to observe how much of content and connections occur completely reactionary to the social sphere. “Oh look 100k people follow this person, I should follow them.” And then you get this sort of feedback loop circle jerk where people who might not even have good content or interesting things to say have massively growing reach *because* they have massive reach.

Kind of like in fiat finance how the only companies that get loans are the ones that are already massive, therefore they are the most likely to simply keep up with inflation & make nominal gains, then the smaller, promising, truly innovative competitors get drowned under bigness for the sake of bigness.

Anyway that would be my counter argument. @jack might have been suggesting a completely different idea 😆

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

GHOST 2y ago 💬 1

The Kardashian effect

CensorThis 2y ago

They have the name because they were first to monopolize it, but they had to keep the fame. No small feat.

CensorThis 2y ago

The counter argument is very fair. Though, doesn’t that self select out over time. If the people with 100k follows or 10 million put out crap content, they lose followers quickly. It take a LOT to build a large base.

Now, this could raise the question of “should there be people with 10mm followers,” or cult of personalities, but this just comes down to human nature. The vast majority want to be led and the platforms that will do the best are the ones that make it easiest for people to be led.