Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by mrpg on Sunday April 29 2018, @03:56PM   Printer-friendly
from the all-my-life-is-in-my-flash-drive dept.

Steven Saus has written a blog post about why you should never rely on social media. In his latest post on the topic he points out that:

[...] If you don’t personally own your website and data, you don’t have a website or data. Quite simply, you cannot rely on someone else for you to have a website, platform, or social media presence.

[...] I now know, in my gut, how fragile my access to the services Google, Facebook, and Twitter supply are.

Because – and I cannot stress this enough – my ban from G+ was due to something I supposedly posted to G+ when I was unable to post to G+. Hell, I still don’t know what got me in trouble in the first place.

Regardless, my trust is broken, and my role as product has been made painfully clear.

G+ is used as the example, but the same principles apply to the other social control media.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Informative) by FakeBeldin on Sunday April 29 2018, @07:14PM (6 children)

    by FakeBeldin (3360) on Sunday April 29 2018, @07:14PM (#673461) Journal

    From the summary, I thought this related to people who make money by uploading photos/videos to social media. Sometimes, social media companies change the rules - to cut down on things that are giving them bad press, or to improve monetization for themselves. Youtube did something like that recently, and apparently, some folks who used to make money off of Youtube now didn't anymore. And they got upset.

    Of course, whether it is Youtube changing rules on which videos will get ads and which won't, or when it's instagram removing thousands of trolls which causes some people to drop below the threshold # of followers where companies are willing to advertise with them, or whether it's yet another social media site taking a rule that affects the profitability of some users:
    - those users will complain, and
    - the reasons for taking that decision make sound business sense.
    From a business perspective, it would be idiotic for Youtube to share advertising revenue with a "creator" whose videos do not increase Youtube's profits. Fake profiles pollute plenty of social media sites, and companies believe that the site will be more profitable if it has less of those. Since fake profiles don't buy stuff (typically), getting rid of them means getting rid of zero-revenue users that are in transgression of your rules. So: profitability of your site goes up once you dump 'em.

    Crux of the matter: if you have a nice job, but no contract with the entity who wires you money at the end of the month, then that entity can suddenly stop wiring money. That's kind of the point of contracts - to prevent such surprises on either side.

    TL;DR: there are people that feel that Youtube / Instagram / ... owes them their money-making platform, and they get upset of the rules change. However: rules are not about them, but about Youtube / Instagram / .... . And they change to make these platforms more money. When that hurts the little guy, well, why would they care?

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Interesting=1, Informative=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 5, Interesting) by bobthecimmerian on Sunday April 29 2018, @08:32PM (5 children)

    by bobthecimmerian (6834) on Sunday April 29 2018, @08:32PM (#673475)

    I agree with your points. But just to add a dimension for consideration: sometimes even when you know the owner of a marketplace can bury you at a whim, you have no choice but to play. I don't know what the situation is today, but a few years ago mobile app developers had no choice but to suffer through Apple's capricious app approval process: iPhone users were spending dramatically more money than other mobile operating system users. At the time, making money on Android, Blackberry, Windows Phone, etc... was all but impossible, so Apple was the only game in town. Likewise, if I want to make money off of social applications my choices are to play ball with Facebook and Twitter and risk having them shut me down in an instant or make zip in obscurity. If you want to make money advertising on videos Youtube is effectively a monopoly (unless you're doing gaming videos, in which case maybe Twitch is an option) and you're going to have a hell of a time making money anywhere else. If you want to sell a legal product on the web, the best option for reaching customers has shifted from Ebay to Amazon third party sellers. There's a lot of fraud and nonsense in that market too, and Amazon can shut you down or change your business relationship to wreck you at their whim.

    The flippant response is: "Don't try to make money with mobile applications, social applications, video advertising, or sales through the internet." But you're cutting out a huge set of potential business models and customers. Maybe the flippant answer is the correct answer too, but I'm not sure.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by FakeBeldin on Monday April 30 2018, @07:57AM

      by FakeBeldin (3360) on Monday April 30 2018, @07:57AM (#673634) Journal

      That is actually a very interesting point.

      Just to clarify my position: I'm not saying you shouldn't try to make money off of Youtube, an app store, or whatever. I will say that if you do so, you should be aware of how precarious your position is. It seems not everyone does.

    • (Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Monday April 30 2018, @03:34PM (3 children)

      by PiMuNu (3823) on Monday April 30 2018, @03:34PM (#673773)

      > The flippant response is:

      Another response is - do a risk assessment. Be ready to mitigate business risks (e.g. develop for Android as well as iPhone if that is your thing). Same as you wouldn't put all your business data on a single HDD, but rather make sure you have one or more backups.

      • (Score: 2) by bobthecimmerian on Monday April 30 2018, @05:46PM

        by bobthecimmerian (6834) on Monday April 30 2018, @05:46PM (#673831)

        Again, I was addressing development of mobile apps five years ago. Today it makes sense to target Apple and Android. Back then it didn't.

      • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Monday April 30 2018, @09:44PM (1 child)

        by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Monday April 30 2018, @09:44PM (#673936) Homepage
        > develop for Android as well as iPhone

        How about you develop HTML5, so that it's not tied to any proprietory platform? It's tunnel vision like yours and your parent poster's that stopped open architectures like Tizen from taking a foothold, despite the fact that it was the solution to the very problem you're concerned about. If one slave master is bad, then perhaps two would be better? Erm, no...
        --
        Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
        • (Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Tuesday May 01 2018, @03:13PM

          by PiMuNu (3823) on Tuesday May 01 2018, @03:13PM (#674163)

          > How about you develop HTML5

          That's a good idea as well.