I pretty much agree with that. Most users will likely never achieve any significant level of "popularity" or even have any of their posts go "viral." That's just the nature of social media. And unless an interface is created where users aren't primarily interested in rewards and are instead using it because it's genuinely a fun interface to interact, hoping for and comparing rewards will always be the main attraction and activity.
I actually prefer the idea of something that isn't necessarily "mass-adopted" over trying to onboard as many people as possible at no cost or minimal cost. When making money is involved and when it's advertised as being possible with minimal effort, you'll end up with a lot of people trying to milk the system with minimal effort...as we have actually witnessed ourselves. It spawns endless attempts at spamming, scamming, and the creation of mostly "low-quality" content just to make some quick cash.
There's nothing necessarily wrong with having a niche market or niche content. If that's what needs to happen to keep the system credible/workable, then that's perfectly OK. But if that's the goal, then the proper protocols need to be adopted. If that's not the goal...well, then...I'm not sure that there's any way to make both the money-earning aspect and the quality aspect workable without some serious reconsideration given to the entire system that has been created in the first place.
There seems to be a lot of conflicting expectations and protocols. Do we want mass adoption and everything that comes with it, or do we want exclusivity and a more managed/quality user experience? I don't think the blockchain protocols can properly facilitate both.
Right, my content is unlikely to be popular, too much cognitive dissonance, but if you want a well rounded content bundle you can't have it without what I bring to the conversation, imo.
The only way I see me getting any votes at all is through networking on the platform.
If this is to be the case, then new users shouldn't be encouraged through random upvotes, but rather the users we already have need to be given a chance to be known.
For instance, folks with less than 100 posts haven't really put in the effort, if you ask me.
I support folks whose content I do not agree with, but I do agree with their being allowed to say it.
Nsfw, specifically.
I have no love for it, but if that is their thing, I won't downvote it either.
Poo humor, too.
I completely agree with that. I've been saying this for a long, long time. The problem that I see a lot of on this platform is the same problem that I see with "failed" bloggers elsewhere - they either don't create interesting content or they don't bother with or know how to network. That's all social media is. If you can't or are unwilling to do those two things, then there shouldn't be much expectation of "making money online."
The random and/or widespread upvotes for new users and "minnows," just for the sake of "giving them something," isn't exactly the best approach for growing value from a content and user/viewer interest perspective. I've never understood the idea of trying to support all new users rather than trying to support users who produce good/popular content or even just users that you like.
Social media is about finding good information for you or entertaining content for you. Vote on the things that you enjoy and want to see more of, not what you think will "help minnows get more power" or "help spread the rewards around." That's the wrong approach on multiple levels, in my opinion.
But what do I know?
Lol, thanks for being here, David.
I don't know much, either, just an old, retired, hobo.