6 ms·

Your comment reminds me of this incredibly wrong post by DHH: https://signalvnoise.com/posts/2585-facebook-is-not-worth-33000000000 https://signalvnoise.com/pos

by jdross 10y ago

Your comment reminds me of this incredibly wrong post by DHH: https://signalvnoise.com/posts/2585-facebook-is-not-worth-33000000000 https://signalvnoise.com/posts/2585-facebook-is-not-worth-33...

traviswingo 10y ago
Alright, touche. Facebook is actually worth what the market claims it to be worth, because of the large amount of people in one place, all willing to tell the world exactly what their interests are. Its a marketing heaven. Snapchat might be worth a lot, but I'm just sick of companies like this being valued so high, simply because they provide literally no benefit to society. If Snapchat went down tomorrow, would it really affect anyone? Nope, the World would keep on spinning. It's time to incentivize people to make a difference, not build photo sharing apps. There are real problems in the world that desperately need to be solved, yet we're getting rich off dick picks and calling ourselves the "innovator of the century." Yeah...no thanks.
- andrepd 10y ago
  That's a symptom of capitalism. When your sole objective is maximizing profit, all else be damned, there is no such thing as working for the greater good or solving any of the critical problems we need to solve to keep our species moving forward. You get photo-sharing apps.
  - stvswn 10y ago
    Yes, this! Too many entrepreneurs are building things people like to use, instead of things people need. What if there was a committee of experts -- leaders in the field -- who decided what startups got investment? They could truly weigh the cost-benefit analysis. Of course, it would only work if there were some enforcement mechanism. So unauthorized coding would need to be outlawed. At least you couldn't spend any money on it. We'd have to pick the right experts, too. That shouldn't be too hard, we could start right here on HN! Lots of smart people. The free market is so random, amoral, and inefficient. Obviously a group of well-educated, experienced software engineers could allocate labor way more efficiently. This can't fail. When we get the pesky market out of the way, the sky's the limit! Progress together! History marches on!
    - andrepd 10y ago
      I'd say that's a tad overreactionary, but whatever strawman you feel like knocking down, man. I guess actually refuting my point would be too great a strain on you.
- bduerst 10y ago
  > simply because they provide literally no benefit to society. The value of something is typically a combination of different values, not just the intrinsic worth to society.
- curiousgal 10y ago
  I don't know why you're getting downvoted but you are absolutely right.
  - traviswingo 10y ago
    It's cool, you can't please everyone.
  - st3v3r 10y ago
    Cause it's just another "hurr durr, kids these days!" rant with no actual substance.
- runako 10y ago
  I generally agree with your post, but this part: "they provide literally no benefit to society" broadly could apply to lots of industries. Movies, TV, pro sports, music, tourism, etc. People will take issue with the inclusion of some of these, but that's the point: "no benefit to society" is entirely subjective. Another way to look at it is the benefit to society is "fun", and that people value fun things. So while I am in general agreement overall, I think it's not really fair to single out tech companies for being exceptionally efficient at providing the "fun" benefit to society.
- alaskamiller 10y ago
  You know people researching and working on the cure for cancer don't even have a tenth of the sanctimonious attitude of yours. They're busy working.
- st3v3r 10y ago
  Ok. Get to work. I expect to see a post next week about your startup.
- stvswn 10y ago
  When you say "it's time to incentivize," where would the incentive come from? VCs should change? Fine, be the VC who only invests in ideas that have social impact. There are tons of VCs like that. They don't get a lot of LP money, but some are doing just fine. Maybe the LPs should change? Fine, be the LP who doesn't invest in a VC who's investing in Snapchat. You can explain to your investment committee why you're missing out on returns, and when that means that a State pension fund can't pay teachers their pensions -- well there's a fair argument that better returns are good for everyone. Maybe it's the consumer's fault? Maybe the consumer shouldn't enjoy Snapchat? The great thing is, you're free to not enjoy Snapchat. Do you think it's the government's fault? Maybe they should prevent people from enjoying Snapchat, or incentivize something else? I get it: you think there should be financial incentives from the government? Is that it? Tax money to go to the "right kind" of startups, the ones that would get praise on HN from Serious Engineers? Well, that sounds to me like "we can't get people to voluntarily invest in these ideas, so let's coerce the public into being LPs in risky ventures that weren't good enough for private markets." And, so: no thanks, I'm good.
bduerst 10y ago
To save you a search query, Facebook today has a market cap of $342 B (this 2010 article says they're not worth $33 B).
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

by jdross 10y ago

Your comment reminds me of this incredibly wrong post by DHH: https://signalvnoise.com/posts/2585-facebook-is-not-worth-33000000000 https://signalvnoise.com/posts/2585-facebook-is-not-worth-33...

traviswingo 10y ago

Alright, touche. Facebook is actually worth what the market claims it to be worth, because of the large amount of people in one place, all willing to tell the world exactly what their interests are. Its a marketing heaven. Snapchat might be worth a lot, but I'm just sick of companies like this being valued so high, simply because they provide literally no benefit to society. If Snapchat went down tomorrow, would it really affect anyone? Nope, the World would keep on spinning. It's time to incentivize people to make a difference, not build photo sharing apps. There are real problems in the world that desperately need to be solved, yet we're getting rich off dick picks and calling ourselves the "innovator of the century." Yeah...no thanks.

andrepd 10y ago
That's a symptom of capitalism. When your sole objective is maximizing profit, all else be damned, there is no such thing as working for the greater good or solving any of the critical problems we need to solve to keep our species moving forward. You get photo-sharing apps.
- stvswn 10y ago
  Yes, this! Too many entrepreneurs are building things people like to use, instead of things people need. What if there was a committee of experts -- leaders in the field -- who decided what startups got investment? They could truly weigh the cost-benefit analysis. Of course, it would only work if there were some enforcement mechanism. So unauthorized coding would need to be outlawed. At least you couldn't spend any money on it. We'd have to pick the right experts, too. That shouldn't be too hard, we could start right here on HN! Lots of smart people. The free market is so random, amoral, and inefficient. Obviously a group of well-educated, experienced software engineers could allocate labor way more efficiently. This can't fail. When we get the pesky market out of the way, the sky's the limit! Progress together! History marches on!
  - andrepd 10y ago
    I'd say that's a tad overreactionary, but whatever strawman you feel like knocking down, man. I guess actually refuting my point would be too great a strain on you.
bduerst 10y ago
> simply because they provide literally no benefit to society. The value of something is typically a combination of different values, not just the intrinsic worth to society.
curiousgal 10y ago
I don't know why you're getting downvoted but you are absolutely right.
- traviswingo 10y ago
  It's cool, you can't please everyone.
- st3v3r 10y ago
  Cause it's just another "hurr durr, kids these days!" rant with no actual substance.
runako 10y ago
I generally agree with your post, but this part: "they provide literally no benefit to society" broadly could apply to lots of industries. Movies, TV, pro sports, music, tourism, etc. People will take issue with the inclusion of some of these, but that's the point: "no benefit to society" is entirely subjective. Another way to look at it is the benefit to society is "fun", and that people value fun things. So while I am in general agreement overall, I think it's not really fair to single out tech companies for being exceptionally efficient at providing the "fun" benefit to society.
alaskamiller 10y ago
You know people researching and working on the cure for cancer don't even have a tenth of the sanctimonious attitude of yours. They're busy working.
st3v3r 10y ago
Ok. Get to work. I expect to see a post next week about your startup.
stvswn 10y ago
When you say "it's time to incentivize," where would the incentive come from? VCs should change? Fine, be the VC who only invests in ideas that have social impact. There are tons of VCs like that. They don't get a lot of LP money, but some are doing just fine. Maybe the LPs should change? Fine, be the LP who doesn't invest in a VC who's investing in Snapchat. You can explain to your investment committee why you're missing out on returns, and when that means that a State pension fund can't pay teachers their pensions -- well there's a fair argument that better returns are good for everyone. Maybe it's the consumer's fault? Maybe the consumer shouldn't enjoy Snapchat? The great thing is, you're free to not enjoy Snapchat. Do you think it's the government's fault? Maybe they should prevent people from enjoying Snapchat, or incentivize something else? I get it: you think there should be financial incentives from the government? Is that it? Tax money to go to the "right kind" of startups, the ones that would get praise on HN from Serious Engineers? Well, that sounds to me like "we can't get people to voluntarily invest in these ideas, so let's coerce the public into being LPs in risky ventures that weren't good enough for private markets." And, so: no thanks, I'm good.

bduerst 10y ago

To save you a search query, Facebook today has a market cap of $342 B (this 2010 article says they're not worth $33 B).

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]