zlacker

>>jjcm+(OP)
The idea of posters getting real money instead of fake internet points when their posts do well seems interesting, but maybe an unintentional experiment in unintended consequences. Moderation will be extremely important to prevent low-effort memes and content regurgitation and the like from saturating your main channels. Have you considered how you will encourage moderation and keep it free from the corrosive influence of quid quo pro? (hey moderator, you overlook this spam post and maybe I cut you in on the profits)

When real money is involved on the internet the worst kinds of stuff results, and it takes a lot of effort to avoid it. How's that going to work?

None of this is to take away from your accomplishments here, by the way. The exact opposite in fact, you've got an interesting enough idea that it prompts interesting questions of the mechanics.

P.S. do you have any long-term plans to IPO this if it becomes successful? If not, some kind of guarantee that this platform is immune to enshittification would probably be very, very popular.

>>idiots+oh
> maybe an unintentional experiment in unintended consequences

Just charging $2 might be a huge improvement over reddit because it makes sock puppets cost too much to scale.

Paying out for upvotes, I fear will incentivize lowest-common-denominator content. If you go to a quality tech subreddit and sort by "Top" comments, they will mostly be memes. They won't be from an expert solving your very specific problem. And more generally, I worry it will reward that twitter-style, shrill political dunking, binary thinking, maximalism and in-group point scoring. This may be a recipe for an even more toxic r/politics.

Very interesting trying to puzzle out how a given incentive structure will play out in practice.

>>harold+OG
Do you actually think sock puppets will be too expensive? The value of the bot only has to be more than $2 to justify paying it for the bot operator, and if there is monetary incentive to get upvotes/attention seems like it could pencil out (if N bots can generate some multiplier of attention)

>>Zedsea+eh1
Actually, yes. many trolls do it simply because it's easy to do. adding even a $1 barrier to entry would cull a lot.

Ofc there are determined and financuially comfortable trolls out there that would still make a few dozen, but those few are easier to stamp out without the noise of low effort trolls.

>if there is monetary incentive to get upvotes/attention seems like it could pencil out

worst case, it helps pay for the server. But yes, this is the equivalent of a KS campaign being partially self-funded to make it seem like others are interested. There are likely dozens of other tricks that such a community would reveal.

>>johnny+Rs1
> financuially comfortable trolls out there that would still make a few dozen

No, tens of thousands.

Nation state actors have troll armies, and $2 extra per astro turfing account would be coffee money compared to the salaries they already pay their trolls.

Websearch for 50 cent army

>>cutemo+2V2
This doesn't work well. How do you pay the $2? With a credit card? Tens of thousands of accounts all with the same one? Tens of thousands of credit cards?

In a 50 army, one individual can be paid a third world wage to register free accounts all day long to post comments. The cost of $2 per comment would massively outweigh their wages.

>>harold+K84
China is not a third world country any longer. It's competing with the US and Xi is doing fine.

Tens of thousands of credit cards or phone numbers or whatever - why not, do you think that would be a problem for such a nation state actor