Quote from: TPTB_need_war on April 05, 2016, 04:50:16 AM

Quote from: DecentralizeEconomics on April 05, 2016, 03:38:55 AM

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on April 05, 2016, 02:34:17 AM

Quote from: DecentralizeEconomics on April 04, 2016, 09:27:27 PM

TPTB, using a social network doesn't equate to "working". You are miscorrelating the two. You are correct in the fact that people share for much more valuable reason than ad revenue. That fact leads me to ask, "Wouldn't you rather use a social network which rewarded you for your participation instead of a centralized entity?"

I am not "miscorrelating" any thing here. Earning miniscule revenue for sharing isn't a compelling feature.

I think you are underestimating the compellingness of that feature. People on social networks constantly "share, like, pin" things, events, artists, etc with their friends. Who wouldn't prefer to earn revenue for their activity, regardless of how minuscule, instead of it going towards a centralized corporation like Facebook or Twitter? Eventually over time, I imagine that it will add up to more than you think.

You apparently don't understand marketing. Let me try to teach.

The key motivation you are tapping into is the ideological desire to prevent that revenue from going to the centralized behemoth which then abuses the best interests of the users not the irrelevant individual income. People are not going to be swayed as to whether to share or not share based on the offer of that miniscule income, and in fact it will be insulting to many.

So the users have the ideological motivation, but when it comes down to it, they prioritize what is convenient, efficient, and serves real needs they have, such as contacting mom and cousins on Facebook. That is the hurdle the the irrelevant income offer doesn't solve.

This is where we differ. You think people will perceive the income as irrelevant where as I do not. Even if they earn enough money to purchase a few meals out a year, I think they will be motivated to join and retake control of their personal online presence. Most people do not solely rely on Facebook to keep in close contact with their family members. It is more of a causal liaison point for posting pictures and such. Imo, changing over to another social network isn't that big of a hurdle for most users, especially when they will be transferring their information not only to a social network, but a social sharing platform which will host not only Synereo, the social network, but also a plethora of other online social software.

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on April 05, 2016, 04:50:16 AM

Quote from: DecentralizeEconomics on April 05, 2016, 03:38:55 AM

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on April 05, 2016, 02:34:17 AM

I haven't seen any compelling feature or niche articulated for Synereo. I've read a 50+ page Synereo white paper of technobabble about process calculi.

You don't think that at the very least being free to speak your mind without Facebook / Twitter censors is a compelling feature?

I think it is ideologically perking, but it is not a feature that users will give up their existing contacts and vested inertia in Facebook for.

Users have a finite cognitive and time resource which they allocate to the highest priorities in their lives.

How do you explain MySpace losing market share to Facebook?