So you’re saying you could have done it earlier, but it was okay to wait for the blockchain because no one would have believed you otherwise?
I do not say that. But there is truth in this framing. It’s less about the blockchain but more about the competition in the marketplace for creators, and we feel the urgency of being the de-facto platform for them. Instagram in particular has had a massive market that has been catering to creators for a very long time. Now, a lot of other platforms have thought about the value of creators. As more power shifts from institutions to individuals, competition for the work of creators and creators has exploded. And it has created a powerful incentive for us to do more to help creators earn a living directly, rather than indirectly.
Traditionally, content creators create and monetize an audience. Branded content on Instagram is potentially a $15 billion industry—I don’t know, billions of dollars. We are now building more ways for creators to make a living. So we announced the first test of NFTs this week, run tests on affiliate marketing, and try out revenue sharing and the longer video. We launched the subscriptions that we are still testing.
Let’s talk about your virtual country singer Lisa. It sells a subscription to its content on all platforms as blockchain tokens. But every major use of the blockchain also requires some other broker services: Lisa probably wants software that connects transactions to a list of actual subscribers so she can give them access to their content. And maybe you need a CRM, maybe you need analytics. It also still relies on the platforms themselves to distribute its content. Their algorithms can boost or suppress their purposes, or take them down, or platforms can crash. So isn’t Lisa as beholden to the central platforms as she used to be, and even worse off in some ways? She doesn’t have to be in control of everything, but she’s in trouble for everything.
I am very opposed to the characterization in the end. But I agree with everything before that. In this world, yes, it has dependencies. But the idea here is that she has options, and she can move on without losing her community. For example, she can swap payment providers, she can move platforms — if she gets kicked out of Twitter, she can start using YouTube, and she’ll still maintain all relationships with all her subscribers. Yes, there is an expectation from its subscribers, but it enjoys a greater degree of independence. I would also note that subscribers can vote with their money, so if you don’t produce good content, they will probably stop paying. This is actually a healthy incentive.
Blockchain is a public record of transactions. In theory, it’s anonymous, but if someone wants it badly enough, they’ll probably know who your subscribers are. If they’re into country music, it probably doesn’t matter. But if Lisa makes BDSM videos, or has a radical political newsletter, that’s different. Also, Lisa’s competitors may find it helpful to know who she subscribes to or how many subscribers she has. How do you protect this information?
There are a bunch of really interesting privacy implications and trade-offs about what you store on the publicly available blockchain. It may be anonymous and fragmented, but it is publicly available, so you can count the number of subscribers. It will be one of the most interesting things when we try to design this system, in collaboration with the community.
Adam Mosseri says he wants big tech to give up control
Source link Adam Mosseri says he wants big tech to give up control