Let me explain by example. The Right Side Broadcasting Network (RSBN) has expressed displeasure with YouTube on many instances through their tweets:
HEY @YouTube & @TeamYouTube & @YTCreators FOR THE BILLIONTH TIME FIX YOUR DUMB ALGORITHM TO STOP MARKING THE PRESS BRIEFINGS "NOT SUITABLE FOR MOST ADVERTISERS"! WHAT IS THE FREAKING PROBLEM OVER THERE??? pic.twitter.com/QsGXl4zyBf
— RSBN 🇺🇸 (@RSBNetwork) January 24, 2018
Here’s my view: For RSBN to exist as a company, it must partner with reliable suppliers who provide additional components to deliver a complete solution to their customers. They buy website development services, they buy hosting services, office space, and every manner of things. INCLUDING a streaming service. What does RSBN pay for this service?
To my knowledge, YouTube has no contractual relationship to provide RSBN services of any kind. What that means is that if the service they’re receiving is shitty, they have no recourse OTHER than to find another streaming service for which someone is likely going to ask them for money.
RSBN can rail all they want against YouTube but it’s a bad business plan to have the most critical technology you need to come from a company that’s providing the service for free.
I feel the same way about Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and so forth. If your business model depends on a free service that has no obligation to provide you that service, you’re in serious trouble down the road.
When I was a software marketing manager, the entire notion of giving away software in hopes that we’d find a way to monetize it down the road would have been pure insanity. Nevertheless, a big part of the Tech Bubble was just that — lots of good ideas but no way to make money.
Google is the exception by creating products they could sell such as promoted advertisements based on AdWords. It is, however, just advertising that’s done in a new and clever way. Advertising has been around for a very long time and people understand how to make money from it.
Social media has yet to figure out how to make money with Twitter and Facebook both having serious issues. If a business model is dependent on any of these companies to survive and continue to provide free services when they’re not making money, you’re probably going to be really unhappy. Looking at the stocks, Twitter’s P/E ratio of 42.34% is stratospheric and not sustainable and Facebook stock recently cratered 19% on earnings.
In my view the social media companies have demonstrated demand but not the ability to make money. They’re also not a public utility so it’s up to them to figure out how to do it.
We also saw this with UNIX and Linux. These free operating systems simply did not deliver the user experience people wanted. That’s not to say they’re not nifty, cool, and useful because they are. But they never caught on and Linux only has about 1.6% of the desktop market.
If you aren’t making money, you need to ruthlessly stick to your core business and figure out how to make money. Or get yourself sold. As a business, this whole Alex Jones, “hate speech,” and all the other “free speech issues” are a horrible distraction that must burn a tremendous amount of resources. These companies are well along the path to self annihilation by trying to impose societal guardrails. The products were never designed to put these societal guardrails in place so any attempt to do so is clunky at best or potentially damaging to prospective customers at worst.
What is the Cuckservative answer?
On the streaming side, if you want to post videos or use a streaming service, you pay money. Users should pay money to access these services. An old axiom of marketing is something which is free ultimately has no value. Also, once it’s free, it’s very hard to charge for it down the road.
If I wanted to use a Twitter-esque service to provide information to people, I should pay money to do so and users should pay money for receiving the content. I’d do it on a monthly basis so if you don’t like the content you’re getting, you cancel. This stops all of this banning nonsense.
Twitter has also ceased to be a two-way communication service (if it ever was). I could do without the 15,000 tweets telling Donald Trump he’s stupid. The president, of course, doesn’t read them and doesn’t care.
Facebook’s issues I don’t quite understand. If you don’t want to learn about Alex Jones, don’t go to his page. And while you’re at it, don’t go to his website either. Again, if Facebook wanted to charge a fee for everyone to be on the platform and a fee to see “private content,” a lot of this would go away.
Facebook would be so much better off saying “we’re like a library. We have a system to help you find information some of which you might feel strongly about. But like a library, we’re against book burning as well as Facebook page burning.”
I seem to recall the left saying much the same thing during the 1960s.
As a positive Cuckservative, there’s actually an opportunity to create products to serve the same needs with money acting as the social guardrails. Money establishes contracts between parties when it is exchanged for goods and services.
Capitalism is often the solution for many “social” ills!