Why Post.News over Mastodon and CounterSocial? I'm on all three--for the moment--but one thing that sticks out is the fact that Post has venture capital behind it, while the others don't.
What this means in practice is that Mastodon and CounterSocial will always be what they are now, but Post has a chance to really take off. Will it? That is the big question.
If I were in charge of CounterSocial, I would be looking for funding, BTW. The user-donor/subscription model just doesn't seem a winner to me.
If the NYT and other outlets can't make it at scale with model where users pay--and scale is the big issue--then social media sites won't succeed either. Which brings me to my point: With CounterSocial, what you see now is what it will always be without proper funding. If you are happy with that, then good for you.
Historically, models where the users pay have never worked in media. Newspapers and magazines always made the lion's share of their profits from ads, as did TV. User funded TV like the BBC has always lost money.
I get the fact that some people like the lack of scale at Mastodon and CounterSocial, but the main value of Twitter to me has been its scale. When looking for a Twitter alternative, I'm not looking for chat or messaging. I'm looking for interactive news and commentary.
Twitter has become the premier place on the internet to find this. Without news providers or newsmakers, the other sites will never fill this niche.
@John_Scotus I tend to agree with you, but I ultimately don’t think Coso is trying to be the same. Twitter has become way too political. Transitioning from Twitter to Coso has helped me realize just how much I was using Twitter daily for news and healthy (as well as unhealthy) discussion. I ultimately got off of there because of Elon and disrespectful people. I find the community here to be more decent and genuine for a passive user like myself.
@John_Scotus you can still get news without Twitter quite easily. It takes a touch more work, but it’s not hard to do.
The primary driver for Twitter was/is sh*tposting. The most popular tweets weren’t serious or informative or meaningful. It was a celebrity in a silly hat, or partisan political sh*t talking. It is a tool for creating drama (like right now and why so many people stay even while the hate Mr M)
That’s why Twitter will never be recreated because it amounts to recreating trash.
@John_Scotus Why not subscribe to some legitimate news outlets for your news? It’s not that expensive for online access. E.g. I read The Guardian everyday and I pay $5 a month. You can get it for free but they ask you to contribute if you can. I set up my monthly “donation” at a price I can afford. Or you can get online access through the local library. Depending on soc media for news has some big downsides. IMO
@John_Scotus
I get that you don’t want to just read the news, you want to discuss it. There’s a number of CoSoNauts who post news articles - try #news #Cosonews. Also follow @tmbrown327 and @Madken65 for starters. Good luck!
@John_Scotus
here's a common perspective from people who find what they love and need here.
https://counter.social/@kel/109436026256505721
@John_Scotus
In the newspaper model, the subscriptions pay for the physical paper and circulation, and the advertisements pay for the content, roughly speaking. The salaries of reporters, editors, advertising staff, etc plus syndicated content is the vast majority of the cost.
We provide our own content. So we only have to pay for the hosting costs and salaries for the few people managing it (currently only one guy).
What about media companies like HBO and Netflix? They are able to survive on user fees. However, they can do so only when they are able to offer premium, high-demand content that cannot be found anywhere else. That's why Netflix is now in trouble.