Twitter - Social Media - Decommercialisation & Alternate Funding Models (Prof Christian Fuchs, University of Westminster)

ꕤ Article SOURCE http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2016/1/8/technology/how-save-twitter-itself  [CLICK image for enlargement / clarity] Social Media - Decommercialisation & Alternate Funding Models http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2016/1/8/technology/how-save-twitter-itself How to save Twitter from itself     Christian Fuchs 8 Jan, 11:55 AM     Technology Industries EXTRACT [ ... ] But unlike it’s peers, while Twitter’s business also relies on advertising, it isn’t profitable. It made losses of £645 million in 2013, £578m in 2014, and £431m in the first three quarters of 2015. Its share value has dropped from more than $US60 at its highest in December 2013 to a low of $US22 in January 2016. By comparison, Facebook made a profit of £2 billion in 2014. For Twitter, its speed and ephemerality are so high that advertising logic seems contravened. The bursting of the dotcom bubble in 2000 showed the dangers of precariously-funded internet companies’ floating on stock markets. So perhaps chief executive Jack Dorsey feels that changing Twitter’s technological design will fix its economic problems, increasing the length of users’ attention span — and therefore the amount of time in front of adverts — with an increase in the length of tweets. But over the ten years since it launched, Twitter users have become accustomed to how Twitter works and may continue using it as they always have. Twitter finds itself in a bind: immensely popular but unprofitable, with no guarantee that what introducing 10,000 character tweets will change this as neither current nor alternative design promise large profits. Twitter’s economic crisis reflects the crisis in our public sphere. New technologies are often accompanied by a certain fetishism, that either celebrates it as a technological fix to all society’s ills, or demonises it as bringing about the end of civilisation. The arrival of social media is no different: some see it as the harbinger of digital democracy and a revitalised public sphere, while others argue that it makes us stupid and lowers the tone. In truth neither is right, because communications both shape society and are shaped by it. We need to slow down. Just like the slow food movement, we also need slow media that give us time to develop discussion. This inevitably means rolling back the capitalist logic of advertising sales so the focus can be on quality content, not monetising adverts. De-commercialisation and de-acceleration are strategies for saving the media. [comment:  I'm all for decommercialising, but definitely not for de-acceleration.] I grew up in Austria, where the national public service broadcaster ORF hosted the evening television discussion program Club 2 several times a week. This format’s unique feature was potentially unlimited airtime, which often resulted in hours-long, in-depth discussions of contemporary issues lasting into the morning hours. Club 2 was prototypical slow media.  [comment:  it sounds like state stasi propaganda hell,  catering to & exploiting the liberal left intelligentsia to brainwash the public ... that might bother to watch this slow propaganda crap.] If social media’s commercial logic is flawed, without tackling the capitalist political economy Twitter’s proposed changes are not enough. A more radical approach would be to turn Twitter into a non-commercial, non-profit platform without advertising that substitutes accumulation and speed for striving to foster sustained communication and debate.  [comment:  I'm all for no adverising, but as for the rest of it:  noooooooo.  It's the speed of information flow that is the attraction and the benefit of the platform, from which you pick & choose what you wish to follow up more fully.] Think that’s impossible? Non-commercial logic works for Wikipedia — one of the most popular sites on the web — which is a non-profit funded by grants, donations and some paid services it offers. [comment:  Wikipedia is OK to get some basic INITIAL key facts, while bearing in mind that you are reading bias & propaganda.  It is TAINTED information that is shaped by various propagandist editors who withhold vital facts, in their quest to spin the subject positively.  It's biased and distorted.  Various interest groups (and PR companies) have their hooks in it, so it's something of a joke.] Why shouldn’t it also work for Twitter? Radical improvements require the de-commodification of online communication — something that would require fundamental design and political-economic changes, and also the development of alternative funding models, such as a participatory media fee — a tax that advertising-based companies pay to access the audiences that generate their profits.  [comment:  WTF?  A 'participatory media fee' is commercialisation rather than decommercialisation.  And 'advertising-based' access to audience is going to amount to (a) some privacy robbing tactic and (b) adversing in some form.] The internet’s potential is vast. It’s important not to be sidetracked by profits but to use it to foster political debate and understanding in a world of global violence, economic crisis, and environmental catastrophe. The social media age has not yet developed its Club 2: we must make the move from social media capitalism towards a public sphere-focused social media and a media that is held in the commons — only then can social media become truly social. The Conversation Christian Fuchs, Professor of Social Media, University of Westminster This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article. http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2016/1/8/technology/how-save-twitter-itself ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- COMMENT The proposal: "we must make the move from social media capitalism towards a public sphere-focused social media and a media that is held in the commons" sounds good in theory. But if the proposal results in more Wikipedia-style bias and propaganda that's dominated by interest groups, then it's not much of a proposal.  Those that are sufficiently motivated can learn a great deal from speedy internet information exchange that can be followed up according to one's inclinations. What we need is a no advertising and no censorship Twitter-style fast information exchange highway or bulletin board that discourages corporate spamming of any kind:  even the 'benign'. What would be cool is internet info 'rooms' (or channels), where you can tick certain boxes (of what is acceptable to you in terms of politics and censorship), so that you can narrow the pool of information down to something like:  non-liberal (PC) and uncensored, if you lean that way.  By the same token, uptight old people, bible-bashers, and delicate creatures who can't handle reality without being 'triggered', can opt for either a censored liberal heaven of their own choosing, or if this is too complicated to police on their behalf, they can be shown the cyber-door to existing commercial options. ꕤ