October 15, 2007 at 02:56Why are social network investors worse than banks?
More and more materials are now appearing about the rights and obligations of users of social networks. Even about the union of users of social networks, there was talk. However, in few places the issue of the rights of information contributors is raised in full voice. More about responsibilities. I already spoke about one of these rights - the blogger’s right not to respond to comments. And now I want to talk about another right - the author’s right not to be the subject of subjective assessments and offensive comments. And the related obligation of the owner of any social resource is to protect this right of his information contributors .
Among the labels that sometimes hang on me was the "offended investor." At first, such a definition seemed to me not a very successful analogy connected with the financial adventures of the “Time of Troubles”. However, just recently, I suddenly understood its deepest meaning. I don’t know if the author of this “term” himself meant it, but see for yourself.
After all, every blogger, in fact, invests what is now commonly called content into a global information bank. Why he does it, and who needs it - there are separate issues, but the fact of the contribution remains undeniable. There are very few people who can generate original content; They say no more than 10% of all users of the social Internet.
I will not touch upon the issue of payment for information, which has been intensively raised by many. Some of them even say that this will be the main quality of Web3.0. I don’t know, but I’m sure that the authors nevertheless need some kind of motivation for their work on social networks. And the minimum that any normal person hopes for, regardless of whether he printed a detailed article on his blog, made a small comment on someone else’s, spoke on the forum or shared an interesting link with other users, provided it with an annotation, so it’s respectful attitude to his “contribution”. By the way, in Clear Space, all content carriers are called contributors.
But after all, any informational contributor has some kind of interest, launching information on social networks, the reader will say. And you can suffer for interest. I will not argue. In so many cases, this is so - this or that interest has a place to be. However, a bank depositor, as a rule, does not invest his hard-earned money out of charitable reasons. There is interest. Nevertheless, bankers of depositors are very respected. N Why is this happening, I think it should not even explain. And how do owners of social resources differ from bankers? Why do they for the most part so disrespect their investors?
I well understand that it is difficult for administrators of these resources to keep track of everything, even with the help of UFOs :). But why, for example, in the same Habré not to transfer functions of putting order to the moderators of each collective blog? After all, a collective blog is essentially a community of like-minded people. Why then, as a caretaker of this blog, I can’t close it for comments from people who are not registered in the collective blog? And why can not I deduce from the blog any member for dirty comments? All that Habr allows me today is to close the collective blog for new notes (topics) from persons who are not its members. True, any member of the blog can make a closed publication. But few people use it, since in this case no one else can even read the note. And everyone is interested in attracting new readers. In other words,"Read - please, but the right to comment must still be earned . "
A more detailed text of this note with all the necessary links is in my iTech Bridge blog .
Among the labels that sometimes hang on me was the "offended investor." At first, such a definition seemed to me not a very successful analogy connected with the financial adventures of the “Time of Troubles”. However, just recently, I suddenly understood its deepest meaning. I don’t know if the author of this “term” himself meant it, but see for yourself.
After all, every blogger, in fact, invests what is now commonly called content into a global information bank. Why he does it, and who needs it - there are separate issues, but the fact of the contribution remains undeniable. There are very few people who can generate original content; They say no more than 10% of all users of the social Internet.
I will not touch upon the issue of payment for information, which has been intensively raised by many. Some of them even say that this will be the main quality of Web3.0. I don’t know, but I’m sure that the authors nevertheless need some kind of motivation for their work on social networks. And the minimum that any normal person hopes for, regardless of whether he printed a detailed article on his blog, made a small comment on someone else’s, spoke on the forum or shared an interesting link with other users, provided it with an annotation, so it’s respectful attitude to his “contribution”. By the way, in Clear Space, all content carriers are called contributors.
But after all, any informational contributor has some kind of interest, launching information on social networks, the reader will say. And you can suffer for interest. I will not argue. In so many cases, this is so - this or that interest has a place to be. However, a bank depositor, as a rule, does not invest his hard-earned money out of charitable reasons. There is interest. Nevertheless, bankers of depositors are very respected. N Why is this happening, I think it should not even explain. And how do owners of social resources differ from bankers? Why do they for the most part so disrespect their investors?
I well understand that it is difficult for administrators of these resources to keep track of everything, even with the help of UFOs :). But why, for example, in the same Habré not to transfer functions of putting order to the moderators of each collective blog? After all, a collective blog is essentially a community of like-minded people. Why then, as a caretaker of this blog, I can’t close it for comments from people who are not registered in the collective blog? And why can not I deduce from the blog any member for dirty comments? All that Habr allows me today is to close the collective blog for new notes (topics) from persons who are not its members. True, any member of the blog can make a closed publication. But few people use it, since in this case no one else can even read the note. And everyone is interested in attracting new readers. In other words,"Read - please, but the right to comment must still be earned . "
A more detailed text of this note with all the necessary links is in my iTech Bridge blog .