Yes, thanks Bryan, that actually supports my point, and I was thinking along those lines too. Often, keepers of online social spaces presume that because there are costs for hosting, supporting, upgrading these spaces, they MUST be revenue-focused, as if revenue is the deeper goal, underlying all social associations.
But public spaces, discourse spaces, commons, all incur costs, if nothing else, for bathroom cleaning, litter, etc. AND they can also offer support for revenue-producing activities (kiosks for fliers, street musicians with their little cans for money, concerts, speakers, etc.). Revenue is not necessarily excluded from the commons, but is not allowed to intrude upon the "commons" part of it. An odd example of what happened to town/city social spaces (and is in many places currently being un-done, as it was terrible) was the "mall-fication" (malification? lol) of the marketplace, removing it from the commons and placing it in a suburban private, enclosed space, highly controlled, with security guards, accessable only by transport, etc. This was a massive encroachment on the idea of a Commons, with little counter movement on behalf of publics, to advocate for the preservation of these kinds of spaces, rather than the rampant privatization (and class-divisions, political and civic speech exclusions) of mall spaces. Some of the effects of those exclusions led to a good deal of the migration online, to online commons, as the public, civic, and political needs sought a new outlet. But we must not presume that the hosts of the new online spaces have civic and political needs in mind, and have to guard such needs as strongly in these spaces as we have to work to reclaim the Commons in the face to face world as well, as an open, democratized space for all, and not privatized, class-segregated, censored spaces. Chris On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 1:24 PM, Bryan Minihan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm not sure if it helps or hinders your point, but playing the > devil's advocate: both Boston Commons and the town square have a > revenue model. They both require revenue to sustain themselves (keep > the grounds clean, sponsor and host events, etc), and typically > collect that revenue not from ads, but through local or state taxes. > > I'd assume the folks responsible for managing those public spaces > are pretty keenly aware of their value, and what's required to keep > them from being turned into parking lots. > > Perhaps there should be room for "public spaces for the greater > good" on the Internet, which rise above the need for ad-based or > other revenue. Until that's available, though, the > revenue-potential of a site goes directly to the heart of its value, > today. If a company can't find a way to stay in business, without > any other external support (charity, donations), why should any but > the most innovative folks invest the time to build a community there, > when the site could disappear in six months? > > - Bryan > > Christine said: > What if the whole idea of a "revenue model" is the wrong question? > Coming in from left field here, but does anyone ask, "What is the > revenue model of the Boston Commons? The town square?" > [snip] > > > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > Posted from the new ixda.org > http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=33019 > > > ________________________________________________________________ > Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! > To post to this list ....... [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe > List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines > List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help > ________________________________________________________________ Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ....... [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
