pull down to refresh

26 sats \ 6 replies \ @Scoresby OP 14 Apr \ parent \ on: Should you have to pay to mute on SN (and do other things too)? meta econ

I think you are right, but I'm curious if you think this because of the cost or because if the complexity?

write
compose
128 sats \ 1 reply \ @398ja 14 Apr

I haven't read the article yet, but I'll say yes, you should. muting provides value. v4v.

reply
26 sats \ 0 replies \ @Scoresby OP 14 Apr

what is the price you would put on muting?

reply
158 sats \ 3 replies \ @grayruby 14 Apr

Both. I think it is a solution in search of a problem. I don't see this as an issue on SN at all.

reply
190 sats \ 0 replies \ @SimpleStacker 14 Apr

hah this reminds me of libertarian economists' tendency to want to slap a price on everything

reply
26 sats \ 1 reply \ @Scoresby OP 14 Apr

I don't think anyone else sees it as a problem, either. I mostly wanted to think about how it would look if market prices were attached to things we generally don't see as market actions.

reply
6 sats \ 0 replies \ @Solomonsatoshi 14 Apr

The question is- Is SNs viable as an economic unit as it is?
Is it generating sufficient surplus to continue and grow as a viable project?

If not then some way of increasing revenue or reducing costs is surely required.
Perhaps a subscription model in addition to the V4V function is required?
With free access remaining but with reduced options to non subscribers.

I suspect many find the V4V model too easy to game and see SNs as an arsemilking opportunity more than a V4V pay for content social media alternative.

reply