4 ms·

I only sort of get it. What does the idea of reining in advertisers run amok have to do with accepting socialism as the one true government? The connection seem

I only sort of get it. What does the idea of reining in advertisers run amok have to do with accepting socialism as the one true government? The connection seems tenuous.

unimpressive 11y ago
His point is that this is a larger symptom of Silicon Valley having a bad sense of how to improve peoples lives or what's important. This was my least favorite part of the talk and it was my least favorite part of the talk when he touched on the same theme in "Web Design: The First 100 Years"[0]. [0]: http://idlewords.com/talks/web_design_first_100_years.htm http://idlewords.com/talks/web_design_first_100_years.htm
- GuiA 11y ago
  What makes it your least favorite part?
a_bonobo 11y ago
To quote: >But we expect that people will trust us to reinvent their world with software even though we can't make our own city livable. Where does it propose "socialism as the one true government"? >I would urge you to get back in touch with this side of yourselves, climb in the longboats, and impose modern, egalitarian, Scandinavian-style social democracy on the rest of us at the point of a sword.
- gadders 11y ago
  I think you answered your own question there.
  - gjm11 11y ago
    It is only in the United States that "modern Scandinavian-style social democracy" is apparently indistinguishable from socialism. Socialism means large-scale state ownership -- or some other kind of collective ownership by The People -- of "the means of production", in the hope of controlling production to match need. Scandinavian-style social democracy means high taxes, a generous welfare state, and quite a lot of government regulation, in the hope of keeping people safe, healthy, and adequately fed and housed. You might worry that there might be a slippery slope from the latter to the former, but they aren't at all the same.
    - morgante 11y ago
      Uh, considering that many major European parties explicitly identify as "socialists," I'm not sure it's the US that's confused. It's the US that is confused with the notion that socialism == communism.
      - VLM 11y ago
        Its kind of like how countries with "Democratic" in the name usually aren't democracies. Or "Peoples" in the name usually means the general public are not even remotely in charge. Politically, names don't mean much.
        morgante 11y ago
        They do when everyone else agrees. They call themselves socialist, other people call them socialist, and their policies match most definitions of socialism. Tell me again why you think we shouldn't rightfully classify many European parties as socialist?
      - jessaustin 11y ago
        Perhaps 'gjm11 is caught on Pinker's euphemism treadmill? If "socialist" is no longer a word we can use in polite company, how will we signify that political and economic arrangement?
        gjm11 11y ago
        I don't think I'm caught on the euphemism treadmill; I have no problem describing some systems and some people as socialist. (And, for the avoidance of doubt, I don't regard it as an insult to do so.) I just don't think it applies accurately to Scandinavian-style social democracy.
        jessaustin 11y ago
        That's reasonable. If you wouldn't mind, you could help understanding by pointing to particular aspects of the Scandinavian style that disqualify the "socialist" classification. After all, there are some people on HN who unironically describe USA as "socialist".

I only sort of get it. What does the idea of reining in advertisers run amok have to do with accepting socialism as the one true government? The connection seems tenuous.

unimpressive 11y ago

His point is that this is a larger symptom of Silicon Valley having a bad sense of how to improve peoples lives or what's important. This was my least favorite part of the talk and it was my least favorite part of the talk when he touched on the same theme in "Web Design: The First 100 Years"[0]. [0]: http://idlewords.com/talks/web_design_first_100_years.htm http://idlewords.com/talks/web_design_first_100_years.htm

GuiA 11y ago
What makes it your least favorite part?

a_bonobo 11y ago

To quote: >But we expect that people will trust us to reinvent their world with software even though we can't make our own city livable. Where does it propose "socialism as the one true government"? >I would urge you to get back in touch with this side of yourselves, climb in the longboats, and impose modern, egalitarian, Scandinavian-style social democracy on the rest of us at the point of a sword.

gadders 11y ago
I think you answered your own question there.
- gjm11 11y ago
  It is only in the United States that "modern Scandinavian-style social democracy" is apparently indistinguishable from socialism. Socialism means large-scale state ownership -- or some other kind of collective ownership by The People -- of "the means of production", in the hope of controlling production to match need. Scandinavian-style social democracy means high taxes, a generous welfare state, and quite a lot of government regulation, in the hope of keeping people safe, healthy, and adequately fed and housed. You might worry that there might be a slippery slope from the latter to the former, but they aren't at all the same.
  - morgante 11y ago
    Uh, considering that many major European parties explicitly identify as "socialists," I'm not sure it's the US that's confused. It's the US that is confused with the notion that socialism == communism.
    - VLM 11y ago
      Its kind of like how countries with "Democratic" in the name usually aren't democracies. Or "Peoples" in the name usually means the general public are not even remotely in charge. Politically, names don't mean much.
      - morgante 11y ago
        They do when everyone else agrees. They call themselves socialist, other people call them socialist, and their policies match most definitions of socialism. Tell me again why you think we shouldn't rightfully classify many European parties as socialist?
    - jessaustin 11y ago
      Perhaps 'gjm11 is caught on Pinker's euphemism treadmill? If "socialist" is no longer a word we can use in polite company, how will we signify that political and economic arrangement?
      - gjm11 11y ago
        I don't think I'm caught on the euphemism treadmill; I have no problem describing some systems and some people as socialist. (And, for the avoidance of doubt, I don't regard it as an insult to do so.) I just don't think it applies accurately to Scandinavian-style social democracy.
        jessaustin 11y ago
        That's reasonable. If you wouldn't mind, you could help understanding by pointing to particular aspects of the Scandinavian style that disqualify the "socialist" classification. After all, there are some people on HN who unironically describe USA as "socialist".