> 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.

▲

iamacyborg 3 hours ago | parent [-]

A fairly uncharitable read, I’d argue it states that the platform is acting on the platform’s interest, not the user’s.

	▲	sparselogic an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Speaking from the standpoint of a user: I consider my attention a scarce resource that needs defending. 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.