Response to Sharecropping

The article posted on Phaedru’s blog entitled “On Social Network Sharecropping” it seems to me that the community found within Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, etc. is the land for the farmers (the members) to work on.  The benefit of sites like these is the amount of sharing that takes place between people to obtain content they didn’t previously have.  The downfall of something like this comes in the “landlord” watching over the whole process, who makes the call of what can and cannot be traded.  The movement to establish a completely independent website for every farmer would be an interesting concept, but what content is not allowed, aside form the obvious, on communities like Flickr, Facebook, and Twitter that would spark a movement for independence?  I’ve had no trouble in the past finding the content I desire on those websites.  Does anyone have any idea what they are referring to?


2 Responses to “Response to Sharecropping”

  1. It’s not about content being allowed or not. It’s about who owns the land – the process, the revenue, the data. Pouring your content into a third party service that explicitly or implicitly gains ownership of that content, and also gets to control the interactions and benefit through advertising revenue etc… That just doesn’t make sense anymore.

  2. Ah, I see. Thank you for clarifying that for me. That doesn’t make sense to change ownership from one person to the next by simply posting it on a third party service.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: