I have a theory, after working for one of the UK’s largest social networks, that no-one who runs a social network understands what made it work or why it continues to work.
Therefore they are extremely reluctant to make changes in case they break it (e.g. old twitter), and because they don’t understand it, any large changes they do make are generally negative (new twitter, Reddit).
Plus, in my experience , users will bitterly resist any changes at all because the site doesn’t belong to management, it belongs to them. It’s their space. Changing anything is like someone’s snuck into their house at night and remodelled their lounge.
It’ll be interesting to see whether this is Reddit’s Digg moment or it’s more like the Facebook newsfeed where everyone kicked up a fuss for a bit and then carried on as before.
> It’s their space. Changing anything is like someone’s snuck into their house at night and remodelled their lounge.
This reminds me a discussion with a landscaper. He was wary of landscapers who wanted to go against the flow and who view themselves as painter artists. He explained the fundamental difference between his work and the work of a painter as follows : "a painter makes a work of art for people to see, and a landscaper makes a work of art for people to live in". It's not the same to see disruptive art from time to time, and to live in a city with a disruptive landscape.
A stable environment can also allow people to build other art on top of it. Such as painter artists inspired by a sustainable landscape to create disruptive paintings.
It's a job. Some people are paid to shoot rockets into cities, some people are paid to deny healthcare coverage, some people are paid to lie on television, and some people are paid to lie on dark pattern banners.
> It’ll be interesting to see whether this is Reddit’s Digg moment or it’s more like the Facebook newsfeed where everyone kicked up a fuss for a bit and then carried on as before.
In order for this to be Reddit's "Digg moment", there needs to be a viable candidate to switch to.
I don't think it's the viability itself. The many options also play a role: back at the digg exodus reddit was the only alternative to a large extend or at least the only alternative most people were aware of.
But a new platform technology paradigm entirely might be better (decentralized).
The theory seems correct. Social media like stock markets is a collection of lots streams of random user behavior. It's difficult to pin down what users value except the fact that controversial stuff, scam artists etc are always a hit followed by a long long tail of small niches.
Yes and: One of the hosts of Accidental Tech Podcast, who has also worked in social media, had a long deep dive into why casual efforts would ultimately fail, once the trogs invaded, for entirely non-product reasons. Moderation, DDoS, lawyers, etc. IIRC, they were explaining why they'd never host a mastdon instance themselves. Or maybe it was a viral app of the week with two young founders, who accidentally caught the tiger by the tail. Or both.
Therefore they are extremely reluctant to make changes in case they break it (e.g. old twitter), and because they don’t understand it, any large changes they do make are generally negative (new twitter, Reddit).
Plus, in my experience , users will bitterly resist any changes at all because the site doesn’t belong to management, it belongs to them. It’s their space. Changing anything is like someone’s snuck into their house at night and remodelled their lounge.
It’ll be interesting to see whether this is Reddit’s Digg moment or it’s more like the Facebook newsfeed where everyone kicked up a fuss for a bit and then carried on as before.