This is inspired by Joan Westenberg's essay, "Why I'm Not on Friend.tech", an opinion piece where she presents a critical stance on commodified social platforms like Friend.Tech. I'd like to present an alternative perspective, one that highlights the possibilities this new era brings for creators. I am on Friend.Tech, but not an active user. I had to see what all the fuss was about though. Farcaster is much more my speed.
This is an exciting time to be a creator. For the first time we're able to truly own our social graphs, transport them across platforms, and monetize them without relinquishing control to corporations that would monetize them regardless.
It's self-custody all the way, baby.
Understandably, people have some concerns. Privacy, the potential for exploitation, and the ethics surrounding commodifying our social interactions to begin with. These concerns will always be present on any platform where you put yourself out there to the world and it's something that we need to vigilantly discuss and improve as we build new social platforms.
While I can understand the view that commodification of the social graph is a reduction of human value to market metrics, I think these platforms represent the logical extension of the value creators provide to their communities.
Friend.Tech—and any other market where shares of your time are traded—do not inherently devalue an individual's worth; rather, they offer a marketplace where demand for a creator's time can be quantified, and their intrinsic value can be reflected in that market. The value is initially provided by the creator, which in turn drives demand. To call it predatory takes agency away from the people who engage by choice. The fact is, if you aren't offering something of value, you shouldn't expect to monetize successfully. While not necessarily optimal, Friend.Tech provides one way to do this.
Arguing that putting a price on your social graph harms the creator-audience relationship overlooks the foundations of the pre-existing relationship. These platforms presuppose an existing market for a creator's time, built upon the relationship cultivated through other free-to-access platforms like Twitter or Farcaster. Emerging markets for our social graphs aren't distracting from these relationships. They are adding a new dimension.
Creators can monetize their time without taking anything away from the value of free interactions elsewhere. If a creator decided to exclusively interact on a monetized platform, it's then up to the audience to determine if they wish to follow.
The emergence of a market around individuals who brings significant value to the table is not just compelling and logical, it's fair. It's part meritocracy, and part free-market. Those who excel should rightfully be able to earn from their contributions.
You can argue that a transactional relationship between creators and their audiences is damaging, I think it's an oversimplification. Monetization platforms create a consensual market around a social graph, potentially benefiting all parties involved. New entrants can access time with creators, who in turn receive compensation, alongside speculative market participants who are trading shares of the graph like any other commodity.
That last part is a brand new phenomenon, and I can understand why traders arbitraging a person's time sits wrong with some people.
Is it morally right? I have no idea.
The fact that arbitrageurs exist in these markets has little bearing on the morality of the platform as a whole. It allows traders to speculate on the future value of the creator's graph while providing additional value to creators through trading fees. How the creator chooses to give this added value back to their audience, if at all, is up to the creator. The morality of this decision is up to the specific audience.
While this trading can raise entry costs for new demand, that only holds a mirror to the inherent risk-return present in any scenario. New entrants will always have to weigh the value that a creator is providing on a platform with the cost of entry. Everything has an opportunity cost.
Certainly I would have done things differently if I created Friend.Tech. Trading fees from key-sellers would be split amongst key-holders as well as the creator. Creators would have more control over the bonding curve and types of connections they offer. There are a lot of ways to improve the platform, but you have to start somewhere. This is a complex topic that we're only just beginning to discuss. It brings up issues of value, demand, and equity.
Some people will argue that you simply cannot put a price on human connection.
I say: the market is always right.
