This is a truly fantastic and well-written article that perfectly paints the business - and human/social model - of creating successful digital platforms.
"Streaming, on the other hand, upends that formula. To put it in television terms, every streamer is a channel. But the more important thing is that every streamer is also the nexus of their own social network — the community they’re working to cultivate. That secondary social network is powered by the larger, primary one: the site the streamer is using to broadcast. And then there are the other broadcasters that the streamer interacts with, which itself makes up a third, distributed network of potential community and audience members. Each platform, too, has its own language and culture, which are esoteric at first but eventually come to symbolize in-group belonging."
I'd argue that there is greater ambiguity about a creator's community than the author lets on, though. While a creator should do everything they can to make sure their audiences walk a moral path, life is not binary. There is tremendous accountability on the platforms themselves to create the correct incentives for healthy communities to thrive. Like ReadUp!
Commodifying and quantizing emails from a business-side perspective to leverage better credit is the wrong metric to determine credit. Response times can certainly equal fan or customer retention, but smaller-level influencers will struggle to maintain the demand of customer service with their creative endeavors.
Nothing here is false. But while attempting to uplift and recognize sports fans, some of the arguments still feel degrading or condescending. Most fandoms — from cinema to literature — have these arguments and can be directly copied and pasted
The benefits of shopping locally as an act of resistance against Amazon is intriguing and makes me hopeful.
However, i'm more skeptical about the structure of mumbuca's local currency. Requiring employees take salary in local currency inextricably ties a person to a region. The currency begins to feel more feudal than freeing.
What's fascinating is that the entire framework of this article is Stuart Hall's "essentialism" argument. That a reversal of a "bad" status quo does not necessarily create a "good" result. There is complexity. Nothing is binary. And that's the entire point.
Not convinced VR is having its iPhone moment. There are too many barriers to entry. Price point, "essential"demand, ability to wear devices for vision/sensory impaired. Article gives good insight into the new wave of interest but doesn't address key obstacles VR still needs to overcome.