non.io is a reddit clone that costs 1$ to subscribe, and then it splits the money towards those users you upvote more of. I think it’s an interesting idea worth watching.
I got excited about this briefly. I think it’s too simple to be interesting, today. Incentivizing curation wont have much impact at these scales. Incentivizing production would, but it makes no attempt to identify and credit creators.
You get money for writing posts that people like. Upvoting posts doesn’t get you money. I imagine that creats an incentive to write posts. Maybe I’m misunderstanding you?
Uh, you get money for having your submissions upvoted, right? and most of the articles that are upvoted wont be written on the site, they’ll be linked, so the submitter will get the money instead of the author. Submission is curator work.
I mean, that still sounds fine to me? I’d rather know about a cool article because it’s highly upvoted (and the submitter getting money for that) than not know about the article at all.
If the money starts being significant I can imagine authors migrating to the sites where they can get money for their writing. (I imagine this has already happened a bit with things like substack)
I don’t think people are going to be motivated by the monetary incentive to post much more than they already do. People seem to already like sharing stuff they think is good.
If the money starts being significant I can imagine authors migrating to the sites where they can get money for their writing. (I imagine this has already happened a bit with things like substack)
Maybe. But that transition could be accelerated by having a credit assignment system (where the author of the post gets money set aside even before they’re aware of the site and collecting it), and you’re going to need a credit assignment system later anyway when people start reposting things and trying to claim credit for them.
there’s also hive (formerly steemit) that tries to reward posters of highly upvoted things, and early upvoters who correctly predict what will become big.
I think empirically money-based social media hasn’t really taken off, but I suspect it’s mostly due to transaction costs, bad UI, and the public goods problem (as information is freely copied). These are all solvable!
non.io is a reddit clone that costs 1$ to subscribe, and then it splits the money towards those users you upvote more of. I think it’s an interesting idea worth watching.
I got excited about this briefly. I think it’s too simple to be interesting, today. Incentivizing curation wont have much impact at these scales. Incentivizing production would, but it makes no attempt to identify and credit creators.
You get money for writing posts that people like. Upvoting posts doesn’t get you money. I imagine that creats an incentive to write posts. Maybe I’m misunderstanding you?
Uh, you get money for having your submissions upvoted, right? and most of the articles that are upvoted wont be written on the site, they’ll be linked, so the submitter will get the money instead of the author. Submission is curator work.
Oh, got it.
I mean, that still sounds fine to me? I’d rather know about a cool article because it’s highly upvoted (and the submitter getting money for that) than not know about the article at all.
If the money starts being significant I can imagine authors migrating to the sites where they can get money for their writing. (I imagine this has already happened a bit with things like substack)
I don’t think people are going to be motivated by the monetary incentive to post much more than they already do. People seem to already like sharing stuff they think is good.
Maybe. But that transition could be accelerated by having a credit assignment system (where the author of the post gets money set aside even before they’re aware of the site and collecting it), and you’re going to need a credit assignment system later anyway when people start reposting things and trying to claim credit for them.
there’s also hive (formerly steemit) that tries to reward posters of highly upvoted things, and early upvoters who correctly predict what will become big.
I think empirically money-based social media hasn’t really taken off, but I suspect it’s mostly due to transaction costs, bad UI, and the public goods problem (as information is freely copied). These are all solvable!