7 ms·

Manifestos and Monopolies

133 points by misiti3780 10y ago

RodericDay 10y ago
> I have probably written more positive pieces about Facebook than just about any other company, and frankly, still will. > My deep-rooted suspicion of Zuckerberg’s manifesto has nothing to do with Facebook or Zuckerberg; I suspect that we agree on more political goals than not. > I don’t necessarily begrudge Facebook this dominance; > Moreover, my proposals are in line with Zuckerberg’s proclaimed goals: I don't honestly like how the author keeps doing this two steps forward, one step back approach, hedging at every turn. I guess hedging is the "smart" strategy, and he's fond of calling himself a strategist. However, it makes for a fairly annoying read. It echoes that term that mocks all the security at airports, "security theater", but this one instead is a theater of even-handedness. I think the pieces against Facebook need to be more decisive and less concerned with themselves.
- JumpCrisscross 10y ago
  He's saying: 1. Facebook is executing a cunning strategy brilliantly; and 2. The power this centralizes in Zuckerberg is concerning; although 3. I'm not as worried as I might otherwise be because I trust him with that power. It's less hedging than expressing a nuanced point.
  - castle-bravo 10y ago
    I think it could also be described as a bait-and-switch. > You think MZ's vision of replacing democratic institutions with facebook is a bad idea? Me too! becomes > Let me point out to you all the ways that MZ's intentions are good. I guess he's really a nice guy and we should trust him to provide a replacement for a failing democracy. Personally, I can't get behind it, no matter how nuanced the rhetorical strategy used to persuade me.
    - JumpCrisscross 10y ago
      It's an articulation of the general versus the specific. He's saying the general idea underpinning Zuckerberg's manifesto is concerning. He's just personally okay given it's specifically Zuckerberg manning the helm. (Separately, he says Facebook is in a good economic position. That's a separate train of thought from the manifesto discussion.)
      - monkbent 10y ago
        I have no idea how you guys are getting the impression I'm ok with Zuckerberg's stated goals here. I think I was pretty clear on that point at least!
        notdonspaulding 10y ago
        You were, I had no trouble picking up on it at least. It seems to me that this battle was really lost several years ago when Google unsuccessfully tried to maintain the ability to "export your social graph" from FB. What's your feeling on how things would have played out differently if at that time FB lost its control over people's social graphs? It seems to me that if you have to legislate a solution here, writing a law that guaranteed you could export your personal data from any company would be a good place to start. What do you think?
        RodericDay 10y ago
        Are you the author? I'm not saying you're ok with his goals. I'm saying that you seem to be very concerned with not coming off as "one of those anti-FB people", to the degree that it weakens the momentum of your writing a lot. I'm sure other people really like it.
        L_Rahman 10y ago
        Yes, monkbent is Ben's handle on HN.
        L_Rahman 10y ago
        I thought so too, especially given that you devoted a considerable chunk of "The Cost of Monopoly" section to explain why you're actually concerned.
  - L_Rahman 10y ago
    Thompson specifically says that he doesn't trust Zuckerberg with that power. Even though Thompson suspects that he and Zuckerberg probably want the same global outcomes, he is inherently suspicious of any centrally controlled entity. > my discomfort arises from my strong belief that centralized power is both inefficient and dangerous: no one person, or company, can figure out optimal solutions for everyone on their own, and history is riddled with examples of central planners ostensibly acting with the best of intentions — at least in their own minds — resulting in the most horrific of consequences; those consequences sometimes take the form of overt costs, both economic and humanitarian, and sometimes those costs are foregone opportunities and innovations. Usually it’s both.
coldcode 10y ago
I use FB to keep in touch with friends who mostly live far from me. That's all I really want, but that makes FB no money. What I wish I could do was build exactly that because in the end that's what most people really care about; however there is exactly zero money to do this sort of thing since FB has basically cornered the market in connecting people. The basic question is: would you pay $1 a month to keep in touch with friends without ads? I doubt anyone would. This is what FB makes per person from ads. Free is a powerful monopoly.
- M_Grey 10y ago
  The problem that some people realize sooner or later, is that "Free" isn't free. "If you are not paying for it, you're not the customer; you're the product being sold." -Andrew Lewis
- jondubois 10y ago
  I think that the reason why people wouldn't pay $1 per month is mostly because of inconvenience. If people had to pay for Facebook as part of their income tax (which amounted to about $12 per year), then I think a lot of people would be OK with that and everyone would be better off overall. The problem is that the force of marketing is invisible. Even people who are resistant to targeted advertising are at least susceptible to indirect advertising through peer pressure from their friends... If all your friends do something, you will probably start doing it too - Or else, over time, they might stop being friends with you. I don't use Facebook much and so I rarely see their ads but I can clearly feel the effects of Facebook's advertising in my life through my personal and professional relationships.
  - wtbob 10y ago
    > If people had to pay for Facebook as part of their income tax (which amounted to about $12 per year), then I think a lot of people would be OK with that and everyone would be better off overall. But which Facebook would that be? Would it be the personal-page Facebook or the News Feed Facebook or the Facebook of Tomorrow? It's obvious that a State could build a Facebook clone, but is there any evidence that it could innovate well? Granted, Facebook itself is imperfect, but it at least has to provide someone some value: Statebook would only need to give some grandees a sense of self-importance.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
TimJYoung 10y ago
The author lost me here: "it is a reflection of the fundamental reality that the supply of content (and increasingly goods) is infinite, and thus worthless" No, the supply of worthless content is infinite. The supply of interesting content provided by professionals with the backgrounds necessary to provide such content is not. This is why you still see the majority of journalistic content provided by a small number of organizations, with the rest simply aggregating that content. Facebook, Google, etc. actually produce very little cultural value on their own. Their entire existence is predicated on co-opting the content of others for free and using it to make money. It's a heck of a business model, if you can get away with it, but let's stop pretending that good content just appears out of thin air...
- tribune 10y ago
  I agree. I think in the future we will probably see a modest decline in demand for "worthless" content as consumers seek higher-quality variants
  - kaspm 10y ago
    I think we're already seeing this in regards to YouTube monetization, there are a few YouTubers at the top of the pyramid making money and their content is increasingly "professional" - albeit with an air of amateur needed to connect to audiences. But the rest of the pyramid has collapsed and with it the MCN industry built on the idea that there was monetization scale in crappy content.
  - oooglaaa 10y ago
    Exactly this. My facebook newsfeed is full of worthless content, which, though once fun and interesting is now a commodity (cat videos, for example) As someone in my mid twenties, I spend far more time on instagram and snapchat than on facebook. If facebook was to disappear tomorrow, it'd probably be okay with me. Imagine for a second if Facebook hadn't acquired Instagram. Attention shifts very quickly in the digital world, quicker than a lot of people think.
    - 10y ago

133 points by misiti3780 10y ago

> I have probably written more positive pieces about Facebook than just about any other company, and frankly, still will. > My deep-rooted suspicion of Zuckerberg’s manifesto has nothing to do with Facebook or Zuckerberg; I suspect that we agree on more political goals than not. > I don’t necessarily begrudge Facebook this dominance; > Moreover, my proposals are in line with Zuckerberg’s proclaimed goals: I don't honestly like how the author keeps doing this two steps forward, one step back approach, hedging at every turn. I guess hedging is the "smart" strategy, and he's fond of calling himself a strategist. However, it makes for a fairly annoying read. It echoes that term that mocks all the security at airports, "security theater", but this one instead is a theater of even-handedness. I think the pieces against Facebook need to be more decisive and less concerned with themselves.

JumpCrisscross 10y ago
He's saying: 1. Facebook is executing a cunning strategy brilliantly; and 2. The power this centralizes in Zuckerberg is concerning; although 3. I'm not as worried as I might otherwise be because I trust him with that power. It's less hedging than expressing a nuanced point.
- castle-bravo 10y ago
  I think it could also be described as a bait-and-switch. > You think MZ's vision of replacing democratic institutions with facebook is a bad idea? Me too! becomes > Let me point out to you all the ways that MZ's intentions are good. I guess he's really a nice guy and we should trust him to provide a replacement for a failing democracy. Personally, I can't get behind it, no matter how nuanced the rhetorical strategy used to persuade me.
  - JumpCrisscross 10y ago
    It's an articulation of the general versus the specific. He's saying the general idea underpinning Zuckerberg's manifesto is concerning. He's just personally okay given it's specifically Zuckerberg manning the helm. (Separately, he says Facebook is in a good economic position. That's a separate train of thought from the manifesto discussion.)
    - monkbent 10y ago
      I have no idea how you guys are getting the impression I'm ok with Zuckerberg's stated goals here. I think I was pretty clear on that point at least!
      - notdonspaulding 10y ago
        You were, I had no trouble picking up on it at least. It seems to me that this battle was really lost several years ago when Google unsuccessfully tried to maintain the ability to "export your social graph" from FB. What's your feeling on how things would have played out differently if at that time FB lost its control over people's social graphs? It seems to me that if you have to legislate a solution here, writing a law that guaranteed you could export your personal data from any company would be a good place to start. What do you think?
      - RodericDay 10y ago
        Are you the author? I'm not saying you're ok with his goals. I'm saying that you seem to be very concerned with not coming off as "one of those anti-FB people", to the degree that it weakens the momentum of your writing a lot. I'm sure other people really like it.
        L_Rahman 10y ago
        Yes, monkbent is Ben's handle on HN.
      - L_Rahman 10y ago
        I thought so too, especially given that you devoted a considerable chunk of "The Cost of Monopoly" section to explain why you're actually concerned.
- L_Rahman 10y ago
  Thompson specifically says that he doesn't trust Zuckerberg with that power. Even though Thompson suspects that he and Zuckerberg probably want the same global outcomes, he is inherently suspicious of any centrally controlled entity. > my discomfort arises from my strong belief that centralized power is both inefficient and dangerous: no one person, or company, can figure out optimal solutions for everyone on their own, and history is riddled with examples of central planners ostensibly acting with the best of intentions — at least in their own minds — resulting in the most horrific of consequences; those consequences sometimes take the form of overt costs, both economic and humanitarian, and sometimes those costs are foregone opportunities and innovations. Usually it’s both.

coldcode 10y ago

I use FB to keep in touch with friends who mostly live far from me. That's all I really want, but that makes FB no money. What I wish I could do was build exactly that because in the end that's what most people really care about; however there is exactly zero money to do this sort of thing since FB has basically cornered the market in connecting people. The basic question is: would you pay $1 a month to keep in touch with friends without ads? I doubt anyone would. This is what FB makes per person from ads. Free is a powerful monopoly.

M_Grey 10y ago
The problem that some people realize sooner or later, is that "Free" isn't free. "If you are not paying for it, you're not the customer; you're the product being sold." -Andrew Lewis
jondubois 10y ago
I think that the reason why people wouldn't pay $1 per month is mostly because of inconvenience. If people had to pay for Facebook as part of their income tax (which amounted to about $12 per year), then I think a lot of people would be OK with that and everyone would be better off overall. The problem is that the force of marketing is invisible. Even people who are resistant to targeted advertising are at least susceptible to indirect advertising through peer pressure from their friends... If all your friends do something, you will probably start doing it too - Or else, over time, they might stop being friends with you. I don't use Facebook much and so I rarely see their ads but I can clearly feel the effects of Facebook's advertising in my life through my personal and professional relationships.
- wtbob 10y ago
  > If people had to pay for Facebook as part of their income tax (which amounted to about $12 per year), then I think a lot of people would be OK with that and everyone would be better off overall. But which Facebook would that be? Would it be the personal-page Facebook or the News Feed Facebook or the Facebook of Tomorrow? It's obvious that a State could build a Facebook clone, but is there any evidence that it could innovate well? Granted, Facebook itself is imperfect, but it at least has to provide someone some value: Statebook would only need to give some grandees a sense of self-importance.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

TimJYoung 10y ago

The author lost me here: "it is a reflection of the fundamental reality that the supply of content (and increasingly goods) is infinite, and thus worthless" No, the supply of worthless content is infinite. The supply of interesting content provided by professionals with the backgrounds necessary to provide such content is not. This is why you still see the majority of journalistic content provided by a small number of organizations, with the rest simply aggregating that content. Facebook, Google, etc. actually produce very little cultural value on their own. Their entire existence is predicated on co-opting the content of others for free and using it to make money. It's a heck of a business model, if you can get away with it, but let's stop pretending that good content just appears out of thin air...

tribune 10y ago
I agree. I think in the future we will probably see a modest decline in demand for "worthless" content as consumers seek higher-quality variants
- kaspm 10y ago
  I think we're already seeing this in regards to YouTube monetization, there are a few YouTubers at the top of the pyramid making money and their content is increasingly "professional" - albeit with an air of amateur needed to connect to audiences. But the rest of the pyramid has collapsed and with it the MCN industry built on the idea that there was monetization scale in crappy content.
- oooglaaa 10y ago
  Exactly this. My facebook newsfeed is full of worthless content, which, though once fun and interesting is now a commodity (cat videos, for example) As someone in my mid twenties, I spend far more time on instagram and snapchat than on facebook. If facebook was to disappear tomorrow, it'd probably be okay with me. Imagine for a second if Facebook hadn't acquired Instagram. Attention shifts very quickly in the digital world, quicker than a lot of people think.
  - 10y ago