15YXRh…GL4t
15YXRhqbHawbH49aYzfiww2UQ4Cz82GL4t
- 0 Following
- 0 Followers
- 552 Posts
Activity
My entire point, which you can read in the original thread, is that focusing on the money was a mistake precisely because the money aspect is a negative sum game.
But, there is a positive sum game they could have focused on instead.
That positive sum game is the value that people add to the platform, and specifically, to my (or your) content feed.
This is how mutually beneficial exchange works.
This is why I've talked about signal:noise ratios so much. The signal is the value-add.
In terms of money, it's negative sum because there are fees involved.
But I get the sense that you're attaching far more to the concepts of positive, zero, or negative sum games than actually exists within those concepts.
That's a nonsensical comparison, and ignoring my point entirely.
Read the thread. Stop it with superficial nonsense.
Next time, thread your thread. I had to go searching for this post.
In other news, you added no actual information with this second post, so my initial reply will suffice:
twetch#622 5.4y
That's a nonsensical comparison, and ignoring my point entirely.
Read the thread. Stop it with superficial nonsense.
In terms of money, it is very much a negative sum game.
My point is, if you focus on the money, you focus on the negative sum game.
So, focus on the real wealth/value creation instead.
I've identified a problem in Twetch, and routed around it in a way that may lead others to solve the problem.
If others solve the problem, then I may not need to route around it anymore in the future.
This does two things:
- It makes it a more valuable experience for me by cutting out a ton of noise,
- It means I don't need to care one way or the other about the broader Twetch culture, while still providing a seed crystal for others to fix it.
Bingo.
This is why the cultural homogeneity is a problem.
And, it's why my approach can start solving that, if others latch onto it, too. Because I'm deliberately separating my content experience from that of Twetch as a whole.
I don't think the name is all that important one way or the other. It's got the few traits that it needs, so it's good enough.
As in they're all somewhere else? lol...
I can tell you, I haven't seen a single giveaway in my Twetch experience since I stopped looking at the feeds they provide me.
Nor have I seen the beggars trying to get money from me.
If someone is annoying you, give them a 1 cent toll. See what happens. The response will tell you a lot about who you're dealing with.
I don't even need to look at the following, latest, top, etc. feeds because this is sufficient for now.
This serves two purposes:
One, it gives you an incentive to listen when they do talk, and
Two, it gives them an incentive to actually think about what they're saying and doing.
This is extremely powerful as a social tool.
Notice, I did two things:
- I paid the first person who responded with real value
- I'm only replying to notifications.
There's more, too, but these were essential.
I've created an incentivized, push-notification content feed.
Own your own data, curate your own feed, use incentives to spend less time while getting more of what you really want.
If they'd started with that, then the cultural homogeneity problem wouldn't exist right now. And, there'd be a lot less noise.
No, people do want quality - that's obvious by the fact that people are agreeing with me and talking about this - they just don't know how to use the incentive system to make that the outcome, and the culture here is one of promoting noise, not signal.
The troll toll is a market mechanism, not a block button.
You want to find the equilibrium troll toll price that people will still be willing to pay in order to talk to you.
Then, you can raise that price for them if they continue to annoy you.
Look at the conversations I've been having over the past ~24 hours.
There's a lot less noise than in the ~24 hours before that. What changed?
You shouldn't need to stop seeing their content.
Just because someone is an idiot in one instance it doesn't mean they're an idiot, full stop.
And, your self-curation through incentives/following should be enough to greatly reduce what you see from them.
They do if they're used well.
People right now just use it as a de facto blocking system.
Better to troll toll an amount the other person might actually pay, if only to apologize and move forward so you can remove the toll.
No. This isn't a Distributed Autonomous Organization.
It's you, curating your feed, to create a better experience for yourself.
It ties "their" profits to your non-monetary values (you want valuable content).
It was a mistake on the part of Twetch's marketers to go with the "earn money" angle.
Twetch is a negative sum game. Most people by far will pay more in than they'll get out in money.
So, sell them on the value of the experience.
The power in applying incentives to the Twitter format isn't so you can be paid for posting content. That's nice, but it's circular reasoning.
The benefit is because you have tools to influence the signal:noise you experience, without top-down algorithms.
Look at the quality of your interactions, and improve them through incentives... Then, your signal:noise ratio will improve, and you'll shift the cost/benefit balance of the noise makers, too.
If someone posts a giveaway, ignore them, perhaps even troll toll them.
If someone posts content you find valuable, like it.
Post content you think is valuable, not just for a single laugh, but for building a good quality group of followers.
Muting is a band-aid on an open, festering wound.
Better to tackle this issue on the culture front.
Giveaways lie in the category of noise, yes?
Signal:noise is the important thing.
This is an incentive based platform. So, use the incentives you have at your disposal.
If someone branches a giveaway, unfollow them.
Amazing what a little bit of, what's it called... "proof of work"... can do.
Let's see if the keepers of this house respond to this noise and clean up this particular bit that is being shouted about.