It's only detrimental if you want to replicate Web 2.0 on the blockchain. If you want to build Web 3.0.. then the base is being established. When you try to attract everyone, you attract no one.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
It's only detrimental if you want to replicate Web 2.0 on the blockchain. If you want to build Web 3.0.. then the base is being established. When you try to attract everyone, you attract no one.
I think that's a difficult argument to make- we are in a transitionary period between the two and I don't see any reason to make that transition more difficult or slower than it needs to be. How did web 2.0 manage to get so many users if they weren't trying to attract everyone? If users are on board and wondering why their content isn't earning they are likely to try to learn why. If users are on board but see that their earnings are being manually limited by community members they are more likely to leave the chain with a bad review and take that bad review back to web2 which continues to slow the transition.
Crypto users are bad at this- we believe we are on the frontlines of something- it makes sense to us- and we are used to some of the hurdles. We are not always the best at explaining things for new people and we need to get better about it. We should be encouraging people to join us not making it difficult for them.
Hive is big enough and complex enough that new users are easily overwhelmed just by the onboarding process nevermind tags, frontends, posting conventions, the variety of tokens, and all the rest. It wouldn't hurt us to be tolerant of more traditional content and educate people in the meantime as we grow and continue the transition to web3. If we can't manage that as a community then companies like Facebook(META) and Reddit will transition towards Web2.5 (as they already are- they see the opportunity) and they will manage to keep their userbases. It will become much more difficult to convince users to make the jump to true web3 when they will probably be able to earn from the content they are used to posting on the platforms they are used to using.
The big difference between Web 2.0 and 3.0 is that creators earn from what they post. Web 2.0 had nothing to lose by letting their feeds be free-for-alls and then creating algorithms to let users filter out what they don't want to see.
With 3.0 because of the money attached spammers and plagiarists are drawn like moths to a flame. Which means more of them are showing up given the chance. The useless noise they create quickly buries the better content and the better content creators leave.
As @dreemsteem has already talked about on this post, we've seen this action and it led to the destruction of the platform. When they moved to finally deal with the problem the spammers doubled down believing they had a right to spam.
I'm seeing the same thing playing out on LOOP and am wondering how long it will take them to start seriously dealing with it. They have slowed down the spam posts by charging a fee to post. But they carry on with rewarding spammers for 'nice posts' comments which makes the comment section on posts nothing but garbage.
Will be interesting to see how it works out for Blurt, they do charge a transaction fee when doing anything but voting.
We're better with slower growth and better quality content producers be it written, graphic, video or whatever then when the mainstream starts to find this 'new' world they wont have to paw through crap to find something worth their attention.
Content producers will have greater incentive to stay around. I've always been one to believe that you don't make a mess you know will need cleaning up later where people will have change their ways to do the cleanup. It just creates more problems in the long run.