False on ultimate control. We can't publish anything, even encrypted, to a group of followers and be guaranteed to remain in control of the information.
Strawman. Synereo is user owned, at the level of attention based ownership. Steem is owned by miners, by Steemit and from what I can see didn't take attention scarcity into account which explains the issue with curation.
Our attention is most valuable to ourselves, but the way to monetize this is apparently not via advertising!
Human attention is the last scarce resource in digital society. We all compete for the attention of other people because we recognize how scarce that attention is. Advertisements steal attention and don't pay people anything in exchange and spam is a perfect example.
I see Synereo as more than just a product. It's a Social Computer and it runs on attention as a resource, just as there are other resources like storage, computation and bandwidth.
Obviously I was referring to control over what happens to the content we publish.
The Synereo AMP is also a blockchain that is owned by the token holders and/or miners as is the case for Steem.
You are trying to claim that the user has more control in Synereo, but that is far from certain. We can also create different clients to interact with the Steem blockchain. There is no reason one couldn't build a client model that mimicked Synereo's cascade model of content push/pulling, and only put some of the content on the Steem blockchain.
Since you are promulgating vaporware, we can speculate that anything is possible in the future on either system.
You've drunk the Koolaid. You'd be kicked out of the venture capitalist's office if that was your explanation of a business model.
You've yet to tell me how you can monetize this nebulous resource you name 'attention'. Or tell me how attention as a resource will translate into a popular activity.
exactly: " by Steemit and from what I can see didn't take attention scarcity into account which explains the issue with curation."