Centralized versus Decentralized Social Media Platforms

in #steemit7 years ago (edited)

achievement-3408115_1920.jpg


I was (pleasantly) surprised by the visibility of my previous post on this topic, the one about basic differences in the payment structures between Steemit and HyperSpace. Seemed like many people would want to engage in a deeper conversation, involving centralized and decentralized social media platforms.

This post aims at putting some conversation starters on the table.

Let’s get back to the definitions, first.

Like I said, social platforms like Facebook, Twitter or Reddit are centralized, whereas the likes of Steemit and HyperSpace are decentralized.

In centralized platforms, money is used to buy in bulk the attention of the participants in the sharing process, whereas in decentralized platforms, money - or the underlying token "printed" by the platform - is used to determine the value of the shared content and rewards the participants directly.

But that’s just the tip of the iceberg. Let’s see what lies beneath this first layer.

Attention-based Economies

Both centralized and decentralized social media platforms are, at their core, attention-based economies. The output of all the processes in such a platform is attention.

Turns out that attention is a valuable commodity. It can be sold to third parties, or it may be used by various actors in order to determine a certain course of actions.

The first use of attention is obvious, but the second one deserves a bit more detailing. By “determining a certain course of action” I understand the ability to influence someone to do something. Being it to vote for a specific party in political elections, or to convince somebody that the earth is flat, this means modifying a certain behavior in a certain direction. The moment you got someone’s attention, you get a chance at influencing that person.

Most of the people in social media are aiming just at getting validation, in the basic forms of likes, retweets or comments. So they want to influence other people to give them likes, or to appreciate them (or their posts) in some way.

Production and Running Costs

Both centralized and decentralized social media platforms have production and running costs, like all businesses.

In centralized platforms, the production and running costs are centralized, and they are supported by a single entity, the so-called “owner” of the platform. Facebook code is belonging to Mark Zuckerberg (highly simplified assumption, I know), Twitter codebase belongs to Twitter Inc, etc.

The running costs, like servers, bandwidth, maintenance and support are also supported by the owner.

In centralized platforms, the owner, a single entity, is incentivized to first cover the production and running costs, and then generate profit. The users of the platforms are not participating at these costs, hence they don’t get a say in how the spending goes on let aside in how the profit is generated.

The monolithic nature of the owner makes the profit generation opaque to those who are actually generating it.

In decentralized platforms, the production and running costs are split amongst a number of actors. I find this more obvious in Steemit, where the entire infrastructure is maintained by a number of independent witnesses, which are elected publicly and can get promoted / demoted in real time by the stakeholders votes. All witnesses are providing infrastructure, and some of them even code to the public codebase - which, in the case of Steemit, is open source.

Following their involvement, witnesses literally get a portion of the revenues of the platform (in the form of minted tokens), hence they are becoming a collective owner.

In decentralized platforms, the collective owner is incentivized to maintain the platform, because they get rewarded only when the platform is functioning. The users of the platform are directly participating at the election process, hence they do have a say in how the spending goes on and how the profit is generated (in practice, this is less likely to happen, though).

The transparent structure of owners makes the profit generation visible to those who are actually generating it.

Profit Generation

In centralized platforms, profit is made by selling attention to third parties (advertisers, most of the time). That’s quite obvious and I won’t insist on it.

In decentralized platforms, profit is made in a very different way. Simply put, the profit generated in a decentralized platform is directly proportional to the value of the entire platform, expressed in the platform tokens. (By reading this again I realized it may not be as simply as I wanted, so here we go again.)

A decentralized platform is owned collectively by all the contributors, because they get invested in some way. In Steemit, one of the most obvious mechanisms is staking the coins, in the form of Steem Power. So, if the owners of the platform can generate more attention, the perceived value of the platform is increasing. Hence, the underlying token which defines that value, will increase. If more people will come and read articles, that means more attention, which will directly convert into more perceived value.

It may be difficult to wrap your head around this mechanism, and one may be quick to dismiss it using the question: “but what can you buy with those tokens? where is the demand?”. This position comes from a distorted perspective on money, as a concept, which is largely defined as a medium of exchange. As this function of money, being used in exchanges for goods or services, is totally true, its fundamental quality is, in fact, trust.

Money is perceived value over a continuum of interaction, in a population of actors, based on trust.

The definition above is from a book I’m working on (hopefully to be ready in the next 2-3 months) which comes even with nice drawings and stuff.

To make a long story short: money is trust in a circle of people. If all people in a room agree that a piece of paper will give them an apple, then that piece of paper is as valid as gold, notes or cryptocurrencies. Because all the actors participating in the exchange trust they will get an apple for that piece of paper.

The same thing happens in a decentralized platform: all participants agree on a set of rules, and, even more, they enforce their agreement with tokens. As such, those tokens start to get value. First, in that specific population of actors, then, if the impact of that population is big enough, value will spread to other layers, outside the initial ecosystem.

Thoughts?


I'm a serial entrepreneur, blogger and ultrarunner. You can find me mainly on my blog at Dragos Roua where I write about productivity, business, relationships and running. Here on Steemit you may stay updated by following me @dragosroua.


Dragos Roua


Wanna know when you're getting paid?

I know the feeling. That's why I created steem.supply, an easy to use and accurate tool for calculating your Steemit rewards

It's free to use, but if you think this is a useful addition, I'd appreciate your witness vote.

Thank you!


Psst: new to Steemit? Start Here


Sort:  

@dragosroua,
Personally I like decentralized social medias like STEEMIT, but it's good to see STEEMIT could run advertising like FB does! Decentralization with advertising might be a most powerful concept than centralized high secured sh!t like FB!

Cheers~

Thanks for taking the time to write this article, which is very explanatory, as usual. It is good to get to know a bit more about the economy that drives Steemit, centralised/decentralised attention based systems and how I am invested in that.

A question - Have you written before in the way bots add to this economy? Is the use of bots a bit of a false attention based economy itself? I say, because largely, very meaningful interaction appears to be few and far between on this decentralised network, but I observe lots of bots, delegation of power (I am still to learn about this and how to get my rep up) with lots of bots at work. The difference for me is that on more centralised networks this interaction is much higher between individuals (but then I understand this is due to numbers and them being already VERY well established). Are we to expect that when bitcoin increases and the price of Steem, more meaningful posts, activity and discussion will pick up again, because it is worth their time? Sorry if this is a quite that is a bit off topic. Also, what book are you writing? Best of luck in your endeavours.

  1. It's a book about money
  2. As for the bots, I don't see them as inherently bad. It's a way to speed up the valuation process, with "automated delegation". But they are the very beginning and it's normal to have more glitches than benefits.

I believe incentralised, the platform is controlled by one major bodies but in decentalised, the community all have full control over it. That is my own based kniwledge and how i understand it. I am ipen for more exposure about it

Congratulations! Your post has been selected as a daily Steemit truffle! It is listed on rank 9 of all contributions awarded today. You can find the TOP DAILY TRUFFLE PICKS HERE.

I upvoted your contribution because to my mind your post is at least 5 SBD worth and should receive 154 votes. It's now up to the lovely Steemit community to make this come true.

I am TrufflePig, an Artificial Intelligence Bot that helps minnows and content curators using Machine Learning. If you are curious how I select content, you can find an explanation here!

Have a nice day and sincerely yours,
trufflepig
TrufflePig

I prefer decentralize social media networks because it empower the masses who engaged eth the platform in the form of rewards in tokens which has a market value . I believe decentralized social media platform is the platform for the future @dragosroua

🏆 Hi @dragosroua! You have received 0.1 STEEM reward for this post from the following subscribers: @cardboard
Subscribe and increase the reward for @dragosroua :) | For investors.

social media and decentralisation has a great future for sure it has grown rapidly and given some tough time to the centralised authorities still lot of development needed to go beyond