Decentralized Microphones

In yesterdays Hot Pod newsletter, the always eloquent Nick Quah linked to an interesting article from late last year published in the Ringer entitled 'The Pariah Podcast'.

Simply put, it covered the string of famous persons who have ostensibly been banished from traditional mass media. What makes this noteworthy is the fact that many are now hosts of popular podcasts.

This is interesting to me because it highlights the power and fundamental agnostic essence of decentralized tools.

When viewed as tools, podcasts become decentralized microphones. Blogs are like decentralized fountain pens that flow forever. Their existence renders impotent the power of traditional media to determine which voices are heard and which aren't.

The channels or networks that make up traditional mass media naturally control the individual shows or articles - and voices behind them - that are broadcast or printed on them.

Whilst shows are consumable and are a matter of taste, channels/networks are primarily consumer facing and so rely upon their reputation.

Thus when a show threatens their reputation, they tend to eliminate that threat as quickly as possible. Other channels and networks are typically not open to taking on outsized risks and so that voice is silenced.

But individuals also have reputations. Those whose reputations have flowed far and decently wide are considered famous. Note that both negatively perceived 'infamy' and the positively conotated 'fame' both are rooted in dispersed reputation.

Fame or 有名 in Chinese and Korean, when literally translated, means that you have a name or that people know your name. They know it because they have heard or read something about it. They have consumed some aspect of that person.

Podcasts are effectively networks or channels in and of themselves that can also be consumed in the same way shows are.

Effectively decentralized media like podcasts provide unlimited, undifferentiated containers to be filled with digital reputation that can be consumed on-demand in a predictable, standardized way. Thus they allow anyone to bottle their own distributed fame to be consumed anytime by their consumers.

For persons of sufficient fame these new tools have rendered their reputation portable. In order to monetize the consumption of their reputation, as of today, this means relying mainly on advertising revenue. Direct subscriptions are also a growing source of potential income.

But both advertising and traditional means of financial payments (i.e. credit cards), owing to the relatively centralized nature of both industries, could potentially silence certain voices by cutting off their income streams. And their reliance on scale and outsized profit taking effectively makes it all but impossible for a person of little to no fame from monetizing their voice.

If I have any readers, some of you may be upset with me, but it's at this point that I can't help but again bring up the potential that a platform and network like Cent holds for those of us who have voices, but slight to nil fame.

Cent effectively monetizes the micro-reputation of individuals by ensuring whatever they contribute in their own voice, as long as it is of a certain standard, is compensated.

When tokens are introduced, the accumulation of tokens will be a trustless way to express individual reputation, which potentially could be as portable as the reputations of famous people today.

One last thought though, since all networks allow for some element of "down voting" of other voices, these down votes too could become portable. Could accumulated down vote tokens received on one or many networks be used as currency or validation of ones "outside accepted cultural norms" reputation on other "outside" networks?

So much food for thought. But now it's time to enjoy this tasty drip coffee and brownie in front of me. Drink and eat the day up everybody.