A lot of community applications died when API access to twitter, reddit & others was severely restricted, but they can't stop us from sharing our own data with each other!
There is lots of research on provisioning public and club goods.
I like the example of gathering wood for a camp fire - when there are only a few people this never is a problem, but it changes when the group grows. There might be many mechanisms involved - but one prominent is that if the group is small more of your benefit results directly from your own work. In the limit if you are the only member of the group if you don't gather the wood - then you will not cook your meal, when there are two people - then if you don't gather wood (and the other does) - then the cooking benefit will be half of what you need. So with small groups it is possible that provisioning the public good is completely rational for selfish individuals even without any cooperation. And then the group dynamics amplify it.
It is more about common goods not public (limited but where it is not feasible to fine tune excluding people) - but it also seems relevant to your research
The way I would play “Banger or Not” for hours. Sounds so fun!
See HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41581923
Here is the washington post doing this with TikTok users to reverse engineer the algorithm!! https://thewashingtonpost.formstack.com/forms/help_investiga...
they've got data from 800 users so far, with watch data on 55 million videos
TODO:
- ping Evan for feedback? He's writing open protocols/open web https://mastodon.gamedev.place/@evan@cosocial.ca. also https://mastodon.gamedev.place/@boris@cosocial.ca was the first one who told me about Tweetback
- Flancian of angora (https://x.com/flancian), it's a collection of personal wikis/notebooks? feels very synergistic with this
- ping Ian Dees for feedback on the governance of this kind of open data thing?
There is lots of research on provisioning public and club goods.
I like the example of gathering wood for a camp fire - when there are only a few people this never is a problem, but it changes when the group grows. There might be many mechanisms involved - but one prominent is that if the group is small more of your benefit results directly from your own work. In the limit if you are the only member of the group if you don't gather the wood - then you will not cook your meal, when there are two people - then if you don't gather wood (and the other does) - then the cooking benefit will be half of what you need. So with small groups it is possible that provisioning the public good is completely rational for selfish individuals even without any cooperation. And then the group dynamics amplify it.
"Logic of Collective Action" is where I read about this theory: https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctvjsf3ts - it is a very short book
"Governing the Commons" is another classic: https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/governing-the-commons/A8BB63BC4A1433A50A3FB92EDBBB97D5
It is more about common goods not public (limited but where it is not feasible to fine tune excluding people) - but it also seems relevant to your research
https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/anarchy-unbound/1A139BE2C68F91EAEF670F34730183F6 is about some surprising cooperation mechanisms.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wealth_of_Networks is probably too long, but also has a few valuable observations