<div class="text-justify">

Back on the train and heading to the Helsinki Airport for another work trip and since it is so early, I may as well get an early start to the Steem-day as I don't know what the rest of the day will hold - other than a lot of travel connections. 

I got a comment on my last post about [Steem as a platform](https://steemit.com/steem/@tarazkp/rise-of-the-steem-platform) saying that content on Steem was better a year ago, but people are too exhausted and burned out to post now. While I understand the sentiment, I don't think that tells the whole story.

https://i.imgur.com/YPOb6Op.jpg

I agree with the comment that many people are tired and worn-out and perhaps they have lost their motivation to keep posting some kind of quality, but I do not think this is unique to Steem, it is just more noticeable. I believe that this happens on every platform it is just that the process is obscured from view due to the way that the algorithms filter information and the way our brains suffer from availability bias. 

If we consider a platform like Instagram or YouTube for example, how many users there are consistently delivering quality content day in and day out for years? I would predict that they fall into two main categories, the ones monetized by the platform itself, and the ones monetized from their off-platform business models and they are using the platform to generate visibility. 

Then the question comes, how many people follow those accounts over time also and how many tune out? A photographer on Instagram for example might generate a lot of buzz around their content for some period of time, but eventually they are going to lose attention as they are unlikely going to continually deliver engaging content in a space that is filled with new photographers with new perspectives. 

From an end user consumer perspective though, this is not seen as there are always more content creators being pushed through the feeds to grab attention. The thing that people still don't seem to understand about the centralized platforms is that they platform doesn't care at all about any individual user, it just wants profit. It is happy to churn and burn because there are always more content creators in the world. As soon as one isn't performing to their algoithmic standard or threatens their advertising revenue, they are gone and the next sucker is boosted to the limelight - for their *15 minutes* of fame.

Fame rarely lasts and unless one uses that attention well and builds an economic position of ownership with it, once it peters out and the attention and therefore income stops flowing, they are stuck. How many "travel bloggers" in a bikini have there been, and how long do they last on average? You don't know, because even if you follow them, there are always more waiting in the wings with a fancier location, a better body and a smaller bikini. 

As said, the ones who are posting quality content consistently on social media are the ones who are monetized or use it as their business funnel -oh, and the ones who are trying to be monetized and use it as their business funnel. How many of those *trying* will consistently post quality over the space of years without attention, feedback, return on their *whatever they put in* investment? 

Most of the content put on the internet is crap, but what is *shared* on the internet feeds that availability bias we hold by cherry-picking the best (and most popular) content from the 4 billion internet users and pushes it into the eye line. This gives the impression of quality averages without showing the alternatives. Out of the 500 hours of content uploaded to YouTube *every minute,* how much of it is worthy of watching? Out of all the Instagram "influencers", how many others are posting much the same content (if not better) and getting no attention at all?

The vast majority of social media content producers are end users who post without thinking about monetization at all and have no standard quality on their own offerings. However, they will consume from those who are monetized in some form, or those trying. The internet is full of shit posters in the same way that the vast majority of people who play sports are non-professionals and not very good in comparison to those who are. No one wants to see the *Average Olympics* because, people want to feel part of the journey of the best. 

This is important when it comes to content consumption from individuals over a long period of time, as no matter what the content might be, a personal connection is going to make consumers feel they are part of the journey. This is a big reason why Hollywood stars who have public personas can keep audience attention longer, and why Madonna kept reinventing herself in various ways to keep the spotlight on her - the *Material* girl. 

when it comes to content creation, there are very few people in this world percentage-wise that can consistently produce something interesting often and over the space of months, years and decades. Most don't have the creativity for it, the interest in it, or the willingness to do it *for nothing.* How long do you think PewdiePie would keep posting if he was demonetized from all platforms and couldn't generate off-platform revenue through posting? Do you think his content would change? Would he increase his quality?

Steem has a small community and it is a community with a high ratio of content creator to consumer because, everyone has the potential to be monetized. However, this doesn't mean that the average Steem creator is any better than a user on any other platform, it just gives a higher incentive to post. But without reward, most aren't going to be able to keep up their standards over a long period of time. 

Part of the problem is that there are too few consumers for the volume of content created, but there is no incentive to stop posting and only consume unless one already has significant stake. Because most users have no chance of being monetized on other platforms, they are incentivized to shitpost for social connection with friends and family, and consume what has been pushed to them from strangers that they will not know and will drop as soon as the next stranger becomes famous enough to follow. 

Two billion users on Facebook, how many do you know? Two billion YouTube users, how many are you consuming from? A hundred and twenty million daily Twitter users, how many have more than 500 followers and how many would it take to monetize on or off the platform? Same for Instagram. 

The problem with Steem is not the content, it is the consumption and engagement as people want to earn from Steem, whereas they go onto the other platforms with no expectation of earning and therefore are "free" to engage. Not only do people want to earn, they *expect* to earn and feel *entitled* to earnings - no matter what they put forward to the community, no matter whether it has value or not. This is a cultural anomaly in the social media industry, but one that can completely disrupt and revolutionize the digital landscape.

at some point, rather than people who aren't willing or able to post quality decide that instead of trying to earn from content they will consume content and earn from their consumption instead becomes common place, everything changes. This is a massive paradigm shift that has to wipe away decades of internet habits that have created the expectation that content should be free, without seeing the downside of that.

Out of curiosity, how many porn magazines have survived the internet? Does anyone still go into a newsagency and buy a magazine wrapped in plastic? What about newspapers? Do you think journalism has *increased* in quality over the internet period when they are monetized by the number of clicks?

There are more complex factors to consider than content quality and much larger questions to ask in what direction of content creation is going to take in the future. I do not think that the burnout of some Steemians is because of Steem itself as I think that most of those same users would have burned out on other distribution platforms if they had tried to monetize themselves there also, as most would have failed. Not because they are bad, it is just that there is always someone that will successfully draw more attention and get the support of the platform, if not the people. 

I believe that one of the strengths of Steem is because one doesn't have to be a creator to be involved in the creative process and one doesn't have to be a creator to earn. A consumer is an investor in the platform and directly into the people they enjoy and unlike any other platform, there is a return on consumption too with no middleman platform entity to take a cut. 

You might be too tired to post, too tired to put in the effort, too tired of Steem - that is a personal availability bias too - it doesn't mean everyone is. 

Taraz
[ a Steem original ]

</div>

<center>[![Onboarding](https://i.imgur.com/e6A1MiM.png)](https://steemonboarding.com/)</center>