> Over fifteen years the channel has been rebuilt around one assumption: the receiver's attention is a scarce resource the platform is obliged to defend. … As a sender you are on the wrong side of that assumption, whichever way the control moved.
Fascinating how the author openly frames the situation as the sender and receiver’s interests being opposed.
Funny to see “rationing” used to describe bidding, instead of the clear rationing approach used first: each food bank got an allocation of all foods based on population served.
Just because the new approach accomplished the goals of the old one better, that doesn’t mean it took the old approach’s name. ;)
This is fun to see. Some of my family are Division 10 contractors: their GCs love them because they spot design coordination and code issues early and keep the project from getting derailed. Bringing that to the entire project is a serious lifesaver.
To the extent a platform has the same assumption, its interests are aligned with mine.
To the extent a sender does not have this assumption, I want the platform to defend my attention on my behalf.