That's reasonable, but then you leap from there into giving credit to Reddit per se, instead of a Reddit-like company that would exist in Reddit's place if Reddit didn't exist. That's where we disagree. In Reddit's absence, another company would rise to do the same thing, therefore Reddit is providing little to no unique value to the world. The delta of the world with and without Reddit is close to zero. Hence no value.
> If it's really "the users" that bring all the value to the table, then why can't those users manage to organize into a community that's not run by greedy profiteers? Because the "running" is where the real difficulty, and thus the real source of value, is.
This is a conflation of necessary and sufficient conditions. Infrastructure, by itself, is a necessary but not sufficient condition. So are users. Either of these things in isolation have no value because neither of them are sufficient conditions.
You almost act as if some people stumbled upon great software/infrastructure and improperly started charging people to use it. This isn’t some mountain spring some company claimed and is now charging the tribes down stream for access.
The communities on Reddit aren’t the valuable part. I don’t visit 99% of the subreddits. The valuable thing is I can go on one site, find a subreddit for everything I’m interested in, participate with the same account and have no learning curve/same UI/UX as the other communities I’m a part of. You can try to argue that those communities being there is what’s valuable to me, but without Reddit they all wouldn’t be on the same site.
Your argument reads as some poor adaption of the labor theory of value. Right now Reddit isn’t profitable, as long as these economics hold, no one is going to fill in for Reddit if it were to close. And all the mods and users can’t change that.
Without a Reddit-like company, they wouldn't all be on the same site. That's the key distinction. If a clone won't arise if Reddit shuts down, then yes, you are correct, Reddit is adding a lot of value. As is, given they have a monopoly on this vertical of social media due to network effects, whether or not a clone would arise is a hypothesis that we can't test, but my money would be on a clone arising in their absence.
That's not the definition of "value" that everyone uses.
Suppose there was a bread company called Breddit that baked loaves of bread and sold them. It's very easy to argue that if Breddit didn't exist, someone else would bake and sell bread. No duh. But that doesn't mean a company that makes bread doesn't have value.
There's pretty much no company in the world that offers unique value...
The same is true for the users. There are 8 billion people on the planet, two thirds of which use the Internet. There's no shortage of users able to form online communities. By the above logic, those communities have no value since they are replenishable from a near-limitless supply of new users.
No, my logic is: there has never been a not-for-profit large online community, therefore the value comes from infrastructure, network effects, and brand recognition – and not from "the community" as commonly claimed. Once the infrastructure is in place (which requires immense upfront investment) and enough money is spent on promotion, the userbase will cross the critical threshold required for growth, and content will be generated as a result.
Just think about it: If it's really "the users" that bring all the value to the table, then why can't those users manage to organize into a community that's not run by greedy profiteers? Because the "running" is where the real difficulty, and thus the real source of value, is.