As I was driving to work this morning, I had a slice of a comment in my head, which was not sitting rightly with me. It was about content creators on social platforms looking for an audience. Which I get, because if you are a creator, you are looking to connect what you create with the consumer, otherwise, what is the point?
It raised the question in me though, should they be looking for an audience, or looking for a community?
This took me down a little rabbit hole of thought, because while an audience is obviously the goal, I feel that the algorithms on the social platforms are built for any audience, rather than the right audience for the content. I have a feeling that this is part of the reason there is so much division and polarization on Twitter for example, because the algorithms play for it and the incentives are for maximizing eyes, because those eyes aren't paying directly.
For example, if a person has to pay to go to a concert, they aren't likely to pay to go and see a band they don't like at all, just to sit in the crowd and not enjoy it. The band wouldn't care, because they get paid regardless. But on social media where no one is paying for content directly, it means that people can go to the concerts they don't like for free, and there is incentive to do so.
The incentive comes in the form of view count, which is where the polarization comes in, because people are able to crowd into venues as "haters" and therefore, generate view counts in the negative, so to speak. This is a race to the bottom, akin to football hooligans stabbing each other in the carpark after the game, because they support opposing teams. Yet, there is a difference, because while the football teams have an incentive to build a fanbase, they have little incentive to polarize their fans and have them become violent, because it destroys the atmosphere of the games, as we have seen multiple times over the years, with massive problems with pitch invasions and crowd violence.
On the social platforms however, there is only the incentive to generate activity from the audience, no matter who is in the audience or what they believe. For example, a person might be speaking out against racism, but they are actually incentivized to maximize their audience, which means also attracting racists. They need an opposing force to create tension, in order to attract defenders, to create more tension, so that they can then receive,
Attention.
Maximizing attention - That is what it is all about in an attention economy. In order to do this, it is about picking a side and then ramping up the drama to attract the other side to attack, then wind it up again to attract increased defense. The algorithms work for this end, as does the shift from creators to voyeurs on the platform. People can feel "part of the movement" whether they are for or against any topic of contention.
And the platforms win.
Ever been to a concert full of fans? There is an electricity in the air, which is filled with positive vibes. Quite a different feel than a violent protest rally, but online, it is the latter that is encouraged, as it maximizes transactions and gives access to the audiences of both sides. Without the limits of venue size, no price on tickets and the ability to be a hidden observer, the market potential is enormous for the platforms, because they can double up on the crowds and they can track the movements of the entire audience, using it to their advantage for ad revenue.
However, very few of these performers would want to actually spend time with that mix of people in real life, because it would be far too dangerous, far too much animosity between factions. However, they wouldn't mind spending time in a community of people who look on them favorable, who are actual fans of their work, not fans against their work.
Do you see how manipulative the platforms could be?
While the creator wants to maximize their audience because that is what monetizes their work, in order to do so, it is about volume of audience, not quality of audience. If however the audience had to "pay to view" the work, it is likely that the audience would comprise of far more favorable than unfavorable members and, those members would be "like minds" in the sense that they would likely be willing to spend time together, to create a community, even if it is loose. They could all go to the same bar, listen to the same music and have a good time.
Being good at what you do isn't enough to attract the algorithms most of the time on the social platforms, you also have to be talking about something that polarizes people in order to be monetized. As a result, the discussions and their topics tend to be quite base in order to pull in as large an audience as possible, which will likely be dominated by the loudest voices, which tend to be the most extreme of the groups and, they get attention, lifting the worst of both sides into the limelight. Those in the middle go unheard, because they are too nuanced and if they speak too loudly, they will be attacked by both sides, for not being extreme enough.
And I think this is the conclusion I have come to at this point. Social media has benefited from polarizing discussions, which has also fractured a lot of our relationships. This change in culture has disconnected us and our continual consumption and absorption of the media has isolated us further, changing our habits and spilling the digital world into the physical world. As a result, we are more polarized, more combative, more violent, and we support in black and white, without nuance.
And communities suffer.
So I wonder, in terms of a healthier future for creators, is the aim to find an audience for the content, or build a community around it?
Taraz
[ Gen1: Hive ]
You actually might be surprised by that. I can't tell you the number of concerts I have been to and the people next to us were so busy drinking and carrying on their own conversations that I don't know how they had any clue what was happening on the stage. It makes you wonder why they spent the money they did on the ticket. Surely there are cheaper places to drink and socialize!
I get what you are saying though :)
I once was at a concert where one of the openers was a completely different genre of music - poor planning on the concert planners part - and the audience was MEAN. Their music was good, I liked it just fine because I'm one of those people who likes a lot of different genres, but it was a hard rock/alternative concert and they were a folk singer with an acoustic guitar. You could tell they were nervous because the audience was calling out mean comments and booing. I was disappointed in the audience, tbh.
So, the band would probably care if the audience booed at them, even if they were paid!
That is poor planning for sure. Perhaps if there was a 50/50 split, there could have been some cheers too, but normally, it is the negative voice that is the loudest.
I was at a show kind of like that too. It was collective soul and they had a singer like that open for them. I remember people being pretty decent though. That's too bad they had to act like that for your show.
That happens here, but they at least like the band when they buy the tickets, even if they are not going to actually remember seeing the band after the concert! There are also times a fan pulls along a non-fan partner ;D
But, I still don't think it is the kind of thing where a white extremist takes along their black partner to a KKK meeting. :D
We always kind of wondered maybe the group had the tickets given to them or something. They always seem to congregate around us though. It's annoying! I don't even care so much that they drink, but at least pay attention so we can all hear!
I think I am a boring concert goer - I just listen :D
Me too! I rarely even drink.
You're right that people are looking for more audience to get more rewards or pay, but i think if we find right community than it's obvious that our audience will also large because they have attention in our content
Our audience might not be large at all, but they might be dedicated. Would you rather be in a room full of potential partners that have no interest in you, or have one partner who loves you deeply?
Obviously i want one who have interest in me
When I first joined hive I was only looking for a place to showcase my art and get paid for that. Now that no longer seems enough. Weirdly enough here I also get most of my human interactions.
Are you sure they are humans? ;D
Well I do have my suspicions that tarazkp might be a machine...
I tend to agree with what you have concluded. I see a great deal of people disconnecting from others offline because of their online activities. The constant feeding of this dripping of what the algorithms want us to see on these social media sites just kills critical thought and people just don't seem to care. I am working on a Reflections post on reestablishing connections with family and friends after my long isolation, and I am hoping this will not be an obstacle, but it is on of my fears it will.
It will for some at least, but as long as being open and patient yourself, people tend to find they have been craving human interaction, but have been eating the wrong food to fill the hunger.
It is just the darndest thing, but here in the States, we don't suffer this much at all. At my favorite soccer pub and the home of the [New York Blues](the home of the New York Blues), we regularly watch matches with opposing team supporter groups sharing one side of the room at the world-famous Football Factory across the street from the monumental Empire State Building. A real proper place to watch a match!
As for the race to the bottom, I look to the bright side and just like to interact for a laugh or to retweet an important opinion. I try to keep the name-calling down to a minimum - it just isn't good for the soul.
Yeah, it isn't like that in Finland either - but crime is super low here, though it is climbing. When it comes to the soccer, most fans are just glad that there are other people interested in soccer too. This is ice hockey country.
That is one fancy soccer bar!
I reckon it is more than that - it is the point scoring mentality. It isn't about building, it is about beating.
well that's for fantasy sports & thats a whole different story altogether. I love being able to draft and assemble a team of players all over the leagues. I like beating my buddies in our weekly contests for some change & bragging rights. it is all good fun after so many years!
I played a bit of hockey as a child, it was fun on the skates but such a stinky sport without space for all the gear and getting rink times so early... i stuck to soccer but still enjoy a pair of skates!
On second thought, neither. Or in other words, it is the same in the long run. A bunch of people who support you, and a slightly smaller bunch who hate you. In both cases.
I see the right thing to do is just create. Grow, fall, take whatever comes, but stay true to yourself and keep creating.
The crowd will move according to its own laws. If the goal is to become a leader, then either of these two options. If the goal is to be the creator and yourself, neither...
!ALIVE 🙌💜💛💙🙌
I think if a person/group or whatever builds decent content, the community will build itself around it. The content is the meeting point. THe problem is, so many creators are aiming for the audience, not trying to develop good content.
Perhaps the problem is that they don't even realize there is good content...
!invest_vote
@stdd denkt du hast ein Vote durch @investinthefutur verdient!@stdd thinks you have earned a vote of @investinthefutur !
You Are Alive so I just staked 0.1 $ALIVE(13/20)@tarazkp! to your account on behalf of @stdd.
The tip has been paid for by the We Are Alive Tribe
through the earnings on @alive.chat, feel free to swing by our daily chat any time you want.
Poor quality creator or content would attract poor quality of audience somehow, see Tiktok.
:D
I will never look at tiktok myself.
Audience is the free people.
Community are the people willing to pay for the creator.
On a mere "creator" based. Community are the true followers, the ones that are really looking for the creator as the perceive something in common as they also feel some form of resonance with him/her.
Community are usually smaller than audiences but since creators are mainly measure on numbers the bigger the numbers, the bigger their perceived impact on the market. BUT every creator has usually a community inside the audience IF he/she can build and transmit some human values giving emotions to people, making them feeling good because they spend time looking at such creator.
Quite a perverse mechanism, but Communities are also growing in a much healthier way, like in eco-villages, living together, sharing resources and time. Or sport-communities where sport is used as a tool to educate. Or Yoga communities, called Ashram, where people live and work together, integrated spiritually.
Like in Harry Potter an "all-tastes+1" communities.
Yes, the communities are built inside and alongside the audience and are healthier. But I think what it sets up on social media is like the ecovillage you mention, except rather than working together for a common good, the communities are brought together to attack another community. They are like social militaries.
I would guess that any community becomes an audience at a certain point. It's like having a wedding. You (probably should) love and admire everyone there, but if it's large enough, it's really hard to offer up much of your attention to everyone in gratitude for sharing the moment with you.
Either way, these algorithms definitely put their crosshairs on anger. Happy people aren't very motivated to action.
Yes, but the community still gathers to share a positive experience together, even if just for a short period of time. There should be more shared positive experiences, but online, I think it is the reverse. Anger is more actionable than happiness it seems.
I think getting out of polarization is hard. Especially now that Facebook and Twitter are super hyper on the specific bias. You would have to pay some money in ads in order to get the reach of the people to your content. I suppose Hive does not have that but our comments, influence through content travels. And that kind of works in this decentralized small space.
In small spaces, like tribes. People with similar general interests that come together to do specific tasks. Hive can be quite good for this kind of interaction.
With the passage of time the real art work is fading away. Now everything is in hands of social media. It is very common "if a person is not on social media, people call him out dated.
I am outdated.
Each social network has its own thing, the “hook” as it is called in the media. HIVE, like Twitter, has its retractors. Without judging anyone, I am one of those who coexist on both platforms, because I have friends on one and the other. Those who are content creators – I don't consider myself one – seek to position themselves and make a living or make as much profit as possible. Those who, like me, use social media as a communication, information, and entertainment tool -virtual entertainment-; in particular, I am not interested in attracting the attention of crowds or influencing any of them. I am free and let others be free.
The content should be classified according to the subject, I bet for it, but not to enclose it within a community or sect that implants rules that in a way seeks an order, but they sin judging the contents with silly ideologies, religions, and politics...
If Instagram was made for graphic photographic content, let it follow that path; if Twitter was made for informational, advertising and political messages, let it follow that ideology. The same applies to Facebook, YouTube -only videos-, Liketo -photography-, HIVE repository of all kinds of material that moves a Ratchet-like gear, i.e. cryptocurrency producing mechanism.
Yet you do influence them, even if you do not do it directly. Each like, share, or even you scrolling through and pausing is tracked and utilized to influence behavioral changes in people. Passivity doesn't mean no activity.
Hive is content agnostic, it doesn't matter what it hosts, it is just a ledger. The second layer (which would be equivalent to Twitter, YouTube etc) is what defines the usecase, or content form. @threespeak for video or @splinterlands for some gaming etc - yet, they can all reside together, side by side, each adding value to users and the blockchain.
This is because anyone can argue about the color of something, without having to have a clear understanding of why one is better than the other, or why the other is worse.
Well, a creator of value should at one's core aim not at attention but at sending the right messages out there. It's about creating sparks. About burning down the old world. About asking the forbidden questions. About throwing stones at the Universe. You need resources to make art, not the other way around.
Well, some are good at making it a self-sustaining cycle. Good times...
I completely agree with your sentiment, but a problem that often arises is that one's (unique) message echoes into an endless, empty void... or it seems that way, at least. I think we all only have so much interest, and energy, to getting our message(s) "out there", before we either give up or settle for the status quo. Some people just have enough of those two qualities (interest and energy) to push through before they're out of them.
I think it's a mix of both. People need the audience for the content and it's better if the community is already there. I remember the Twitter days before Elon and people would just go back to Twitter no matter what (even if they banned) because that was where people were. The community aspect is probably a longer term view of things and that happens as people want to stop relying on platforms and take in a more fixed revenue from their consumers.
I like your take on how social media algorithms are messing with content creators. It's wild how these platforms seem to stir up fights just to get more activity. I agree that creators should be trying to build a community, not just looking for any eyeballs on their content. It's way cooler to connect with people who actually enjoy what you do, even if it means fewer numbers. It's high time we chilled out on social media, stopped caring about quantity so much, and started focusing on quality interactions. It's all about making the internet a nicer place to hang out... then again, there is the MONEY thing...
I tell you, it's tough not to just give into the "any audience is a good audience" attitude sometimes. I've been pouring heart and soul into this blog and my Hive account. I'm really passionate about topics like AI-prompt-engineering and crafting these guided meditation scripts (I now find myself in the blissful overlap of the two - leveraging the high aptitude that LLM like ChatGPT has in related fields like psychology, psychiatry, hypnosis, and general grammar for improving my script writing). I've spent countless hours trying to perfect them, making sure they're as beneficial as they can be. But sometimes it feels like either no one on this platform shares these interests or maybe my work just isn't reaching the right people. It's like being in a marathon, testing my endurance... and I'm REALLY sweaty and thirsty right now... and I don't see any water in sight.
I'm sure a lot of folks would've called it quits by now, considering how much time I've devoted to each post. But there's something that keeps me going, you know? Maybe it's the passion I have for these topics, or the belief that I'm adding something valuable to the world. So, I reckon I'll keep up the good fight.