<div class="text-justify">


Before I came to Hive, I came to Hive, I used to be on other social medias for various reasons. Facebook was the first I was on and I joined at the start and while at first it was a way to see what was going on with my friends and family in Australia, I ended up using it more for the organization of my social life. Twitter I joined for a work thing originally and barely used it, but I did use it more a bit later for sharing some photography and even gained a tiny bit of work through it, but only a tiny bit. I even got into Instagram, which I again used to share images and browse a little. 

![IMG_20210806_123650.jpg](https://files.peakd.com/file/peakd-hive/tarazkp/23yTqw9gG6ULY5bByFVJRhadAerxLbHLV7rqNzvwr2ByotqeHUr8Yc6o6Ss7rKCri6VM3.jpg)


These are *general purpose* platforms and while there are imposed limitations, users can post pretty much what they want within the guidelines. At various points, I shared more or less content and I noticed more than once that I was somewhat affected by the likes and shares, sometimes getting quite a bit of traction on some content. I enjoyed getting the recognition, but it was never going to be for any financial gain, mostly because I am not the kind of person who gets attention on these platforms. 

This is more true on the Twitter type of content as what gets the majority of "support" is the emotion-evoking material. Because of this, polarization in views is an effective way to gain social support, which gives rise through incentivization to all kinds of populist content and trolling. The platforms are created for maximizing the generating of social transactions, but they don't care what content is effective. This means that what is "rewarded" through attention is often not what is useful or valuable, it is what creates drama. 

For the almost five years I have been on Hive, I have found it a far more hospitable place for content, as while it is generalized and people can post whatever they choose, useful content is incentivized, rather than the drama-seeking polarized content. This makes for quite an interesting value proposition and separates it out from the other social medias as rather than content that relies on turning people against each other, it is more the content that brings people together that gets the support. 

This frustrates a lot of people who value the methods used by the centralized social platforms as the kind of behavior that is valued there, rarely gets supported here, or at least, doesn't get consistent support from the wider community. What I think is one of the main differences on Hive is not only is there potential for content to be paid and the consumer can earn, there is a sense that the consumer is *paying* for the content also. Apparently, consumers do not want to directly pay for the kind of content that gets traction on the centralized platforms. Supporting it with thumbs, stars and hearts is one thing - giving it money another. 

What is interesting is the people who create the kind of centralized media attention-getting  content are often the people who are "against" the establishment, but what they create is geared to what is incentivized and encouraged by that same establishment - *division.* While the creator pushes their "truth" for likes, hearts and stars, the platforms leverage the interactions generated to collect much clearer user profiles that they can package and sell to marketing companies. 

On Hive though, consumers are able to vote on what they like and it seems that more often than not, they vote on content that might rise their emotions, but not rarely what makes them angry. This means that what gets Hive attention is quite different to what gets attention on the centralized platforms and therefore, what people create looking for support is different too. 

Many people seem to think that content should be more like the centralized platforms because that is what gets a lot of people and therefore has value, but they fail to realize that the value isn't in the content, it is in the sale of the data to advertisers. They wouldn't care if the content has zero user value, as long as it gives them the information they can capitalize on. Hive doesn't capitalize on user data, so the value has to come from the content and userbase itself, instead of through marketing dollars. 

I think from a consumer perspective, I prefer the content on Hive as I do not feel like I am just scrolling through a flood of nonsense in the hope that there is something interesting, as people generally create for the attention of the Hive consumer. As a creator though, I far prefer creating content for Hive as though it takes an inordinate amount more time, I am far more engaged with it and find more intrinsic value for myself. On the other platforms I would add images or bites of text for the audience, but there was nothing for me or really of me in that content.

I think that while there is a long way to go, as platforms start empowering consumers to give value to content, user-derived content will evolve to serve the consumer, rather than the data collectors. Of course, the centralized platforms are going to want to keep driving the content that they can maximize their profits on and most likely, that will continue to be the content that creates social division, rather than empowering communities. It is funny at how many people complain about these platforms, yet create the material to the exact specifications the platform desires from them. 

We all act on incentive. Some are incentived by the hearts and stars the platforms offer as reward for doing what they are told to do. This is being incentivized by money via proxy, with very little of the money if any, going to the content creators, as the platforms keep it all for themselves. 

We are not the products on the centralized platforms, we are the tools of wealth extraction and like any good tradesperson, they maintain us and keep us in *working order.* While they get paid, we get bought and used.

Taraz
[ Gen1: Hive ]

</div>