https://www.openbookpublishers.com/

I'm sure I read this ages ago, but it's not in my notebook yet. Perhaps worth another pass for notes.

Social media has to some extent democratized the access to media, however there are not nearly enough processes for creating negative feedback to dampen ideas which shouldn't or wouldn't have gained footholds in a mass society.

We need more friction in some portions of the social media space to prevent the dissemination of un-useful, negative, and destructive ideas swamping out the positive ones. The accelerative force of algorithmic feeds for the most extreme ideas in particular is one of the most caustic ideas of the last quarter of a century.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/07/books/social-media-following-book-publishing.html

Perhaps better would be stipulations in the contract that incentivize authors to leverage their platforms in the form of bonuses while removing the advance money in lieu. Make the author part of the promotion, which has been part of the movement in publishing for the last decade.

Following numbers can't matter as much as something like daily or weekly engagement, which might be a better predictor for book sales.

This seems like common sense to me, why hasn't the industry grokked it?

Holmes, N. P. (2021). I critiqued my past papers on social media—Here’s what I learnt. Nature, 595(7867), 333–333. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-01879-y

This still exists in the social media space, but has gotten even worse with the rise of algorithmic feeds.

Purchasing a book is one of the strongest self-selections of community, and damn it, I wanted to engage.

The Kindle indicated with a subtle dotted underline and small inline text that those final sentences had been highlighted by “56 highlighters.” Other humans! Reading this same text, feeling the same impulse. Some need to mark those lines.

Social annotation is definitely part of the future of text. Distributing it across modalities may be the difficult part.

Something about this is reminiscent of WordPress' mission to democratize publishing. We can also compare it to Facebook whose (stated) mission is to connect people, while it's actual mission is to make money by seemingly radicalizing people to the extremes of our political spectrum.

This highlights the fact that while many may look at content moderation on platforms like Facebook as removing their voices or deplatforming them in the case of people like Donald J. Trump or Alex Jones as an anti-democratic move. In fact it is not. Because of Facebooks active move to accelerate extreme ideas by pushing them algorithmically, they are actively be un-democratic. Democratic behavior on Facebook would look like one voice, one account and reach only commensurate with that person's standing in real life. Instead, the algorithmic timeline gives far outsized influence and reach to some of the most extreme voices on the platform. This is patently un-democratic.

So now we need to revisit the calculation above and put this new piece of data into the model.

Seriously?! It's now a "rental price"?

Jr, N. L. (2020, September 14). Why Coming Up With Effective Interventions To Address COVID-19 Is So Hard. FiveThirtyEight. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-coming-up-with-effective-interventions-to-address-covid-19-is-so-hard/

Dan Quintana on Twitter: “Tomorrow at 1pm CEST I’ll be doing a virtual talk for the Rotterdam R.I.O.T. Science Club (@rdam_riots) on using Twitter for science 🧬 I’ll be covering both the why and the how + I’ll be leaving plenty of time for a Q&A session. Watch here: https://t.co/nXHry9Inyi https://t.co/T6u7lvgAhO” / Twitter. (n.d.). Twitter. Retrieved June 17, 2020, from https://twitter.com/dsquintana/status/1264623289814659072

Dr Daniel Quintana | Using Twitter for Science | R.I.O.T. Science Club—YouTube. (2020, May 26). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pA5Y4cO934I

Yamada, Y. (2020). Micropublishing during and after the COVID-19 era [Preprint]. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/8fum4