Login
You're viewing the sfba.social public feed.
  • Aug 8, 2026, 9:45 PM

    @ChuckMcManis I'm not really sure what you're trying to say, and I'm not sure you understand what I'm trying to say. I certainly don't understand what point you are trying to make with your analogy about ranchers and beef cows.

    The observation basically comes down to this:

    Acquiring customers is (as you say) hard, and if one is in any kind of competitive environment, unethical behaviour will, in general, win. In part this is simply because for most customers the unethical behaviour goes unnoticed ... this is deliberate obfuscation by the platform involved ... but in part it's because people will go "Ooh! Shiny Thing" and not bother looking for any ethical implications.

    Finally, like all similar observations, it's not a quantitative mathematically rigorous formula.

    💬 1🔄 0⭐ 0

Replies

  • ChuckChuckMcManis@chaos.social
    Aug 8, 2026, 10:20 PM

    @ColinTheMathmo Fair enough. What I was trying to say was that the "customers" of most social media platforms are people involved in the advertising or analytics business. The various people contributing and browing content are just "Data Cows" to be milked of their analytical content. As with other media, the bigger the "audience" the more an analysis or ad agency will pay for the data. 1/2

    💬 1🔄 0⭐ 0
  • ChuckChuckMcManis@chaos.social
    Aug 8, 2026, 10:22 PM

    @ColinTheMathmo Getting 'users' (which is to say people to hang around in the application and create actionable data bits) is comparable to buying livestock, or simply tempting it into your meadow with 'free food'. (Slaughterhouses being the customers of beef ranchers.) I've got a variety of things I've noted about the economics of information and should probably publish them somewhere before I die. 2/2

    💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0