People don’t realize just how many books and blogs, websites, apps and open source projects are out there. What’s going to happen on day one, most likely, is that the only entities that will view your works will be bots, scraping for content to train off.

If you think you won’t succeed because you just refuse to buy likes, I think you’re still way off the mark.

You need to release to a market, that you directly engage with. Releasing into the void is a mostly self-serving exercise.

I think this can be further generalized as – advertising and marketing are as important as building the product itself. Too many people (especially engineers) think that if you create something that is 10% better than the existing mainstream solution then the entire user base will flock to you overnight, but in reality no one will care because no one will know about it.

Not only that, but even if I *do* know about it, I still won't want to use it. I already know the old mainstream thing. 10% efficiency gains isn't enough for me to invest my limited time in learning a new tool, platform, data model, etc. 70%, 80%? Maybe then, but I'd still be suspicious.

What usually does cause me to adopt something new is 2+ co-worker / colleague recommendations. For example, I would never have started using k9s until 2+ colleagues started to hound me to stop typing out kubectl commands and to switch to k9s ASAP.

just being a stickler here but 10% is probably enough

Paul Graham would say for exponential growth, 10x better is the bar

If it's consistently 10% better, and every other aspect remains the same.

This is really important. One of my friends worked in a startup, an online retail store similar to Amazon, and it came out before Amazon) but the marketing wasn't there, so that service failed.

Nobody knew about it, so it didn't make any profit. Great concept? Absolutely! Look at Amazon today.

I have a friend who basically kickstarted his entire career by boosting posts on Reddit with bots he ran. I won't knock his talent, he's a brilliant engineer, but I 100% believe he's gotten where his is in life because he knows how to play the game properly. Heck, getting his indie business off the ground is only one of several examples he's admitted to me of using Tor networks and bots to boost his ranking in competitions or sites like reddit/twitter/etc.

Funny you should mention Reddit, because IIRC Reddit itself started with first-party bots pretending to be users, manufacturing "social proof" to cheat around initial user acquisition hurdles.

You recalled correctly! Huffman isn't shy about it.

https://www.vice.com/en/article/z4444w/how-reddit-got-huge-t...

This is a very old trick; the Nazi party started their membership numbers at 500 to make it appear they had more members. A certain failed Austrian painter had membership number 555.

> Funny you should mention Reddit, because IIRC Reddit itself started with first-party bots pretending to be users, manufacturing "social proof" to cheat around initial user acquisition hurdles.

"started"?

They are still doing that today to inflate their user count...

Maybe any game where the "proper" way to play involves dishonesty and sociopathic behavior isn't one we should be structuring society around, and therefore we really shouldn't be trying to play it in the first place.

How would you check and enforce it to make sure?

Obviously some fraction of the population will lie about being honest and upright.

We don't have to do that, just make sure that dishonest behavior is not the dominant strategy. In our society, we could start by ceasing to promote and reward such behavior constantly.

> We don't have to do that,...

Why not?

Yes and no. To give an example, people have been cheating at YouTube for ages with viewbotting, but Mr. Beast managed to smash the viewership of any of those people by using YouTube’s analytics to crush the algorithm. Also as you scale up, the less viable the strategy becomes due to risk of exposure.

The idea that any creator or advertiser NOT buying views is “almost certainly a loser by default” is an exaggeration.

> people have been cheating at YouTube for ages with viewbotting, but Mr. Beast managed to smash the viewership of any of those people by using YouTube’s analytics to crush the algorithm.

This... doesn't sound much better. In some sense, it's buying view with extra steps. Both methods are about gaming YouTube instead of creating quality content.

"Quality content" is decided by YouTube's algorithm (viewer retention etc).

So no in the end, the winner of the algorithm is the one creating the "quality content".

Or in other words, if your viewer retention is terrible, it's probably because your videos are just not that good.

>Both methods are about gaming YouTube instead of creating quality content.

If you scrape away the abstractions for a second, what you will find is Mr. Beast used data to tailor his videos to get his viewers to watch lots of ads and buy lots of products and love his videos and become repeat customers. Mr. Beast is rather transparent about all of this. If you think he’s a creepy manipulative guy, you just don’t watch his content.

The whole thing with buying engagement is that you’re confusing the signal. Instead of coming through the legitimate channel where you openly pay for advertising, you intentionally deceive people, you make it just a little bit harder for the poorer and unconnected to achieve social mobility, you pollute a useful signal with false data, and you do a large number of things which annoy netizens in particular.

All I’m just saying, is that there’s more than one path to be successful. I know people who used cert dumps on the pretence that everybody else is doing it and they won’t put themselves behind, and I know others who literally just did the work and it really didn’t take THAT long in the grand scheme of things and they actually came away having learned something useful at the end of the day. Both kinds of person succeeded.

It used to be called "growth hacking".