6 ms·

This seems to fit the narrative of a broader wave of consolidation hitting the old-school web. Like it or not, there are real advantages to walled gardens like

This seems to fit the narrative of a broader wave of consolidation hitting the old-school web. Like it or not, there are real advantages to walled gardens like facebook. To ad buyers, it's a single platform where one can target the entire world person-by-person -- even across multiple devices (iPad, phone, laptop), with hyper-accurate segmentation and user tracking, strong identity services with all the abuse/spam prevention and payment capability that enables, multi-lingual, optimized CDN-based distribution to ensure all content is fast and cheaply delivered to every corner of the globe (an especially big deal given the rise of video ads), mobile-first UX that works across every conceivable handset including iOS and every esoteric variant of Android, etc. I'm not pleased about a lot of this, but it's a mistake to deny what's happening.

cookiecaper 10y ago
You don't need a walled garden for that. You would need some client-side listeners. Walled gardens arise because our legal system incentivizes it. Network effects are unnatural online. There is no barrier to access or information flow here -- put simply, there are no real walls to protect the garden. They're all artificially imposed barriers. With improved laws, no one would be able to hold the web-accessible data hostage, and competition would be based on consumer-facing concerns like user experience and customer service. Until we get to that point, which makes up the foundation of all competition in the physical world, the potential of the internet will continue to be squandered. It's very important to wake people up to these issues, since no one really seems to discuss them.
- caseysoftware 10y ago
  > Network effects are unnatural online. I find this line ironic since the Network Effect (or Metcalfe's Law) was created to describe literal computer networks. Network effects don't happen in the physical world nearly as easily because the bar, grocery store, or whatever is limited by geography. They can only address a population within a certain radius and can't grow beyond it. Transportation hubs - like airports - may be an exception because the more places you can get from one airport, the more likely you are to use that airport.. if you even have a choice.
  - cookiecaper 10y ago
    >I find this line ironic since the Network Effect (or Metcalfe's Law) was created to describe literal computer networks. The distinction is that it refers to physical networks (and iirc, referred initially to phone systems, not computer systems per se). At layer 1, the network effect is still very much valid and caused by the capabilities of the physical hardware. This is forgotten because today everyone is plugged into the same network. This was not always the case. Because Metcalfe's Law exists, people have misunderstood it to apply to cyberspace and incorrectly believed it's simply the way things have to be. This is not so. The compatibility concern at the core of real network effects, where the hardware buy will be dictated by what the most neighbors have, are not relevant once you have a physical hookup. In cyberspace, layers 2 and up, there is no physical limitation on compatibility. There are only digits (hence the term "digital") upon which computations are made (hence "computers"). If the correct computations can be performed (i.e., if you possess hardware that can convert the electrical pulses to the expected digits and software (drivers, browsers, etc.) that can decode the digits to match expectations), the desired data can be presented. Since network effects refer exclusively to physical compatibility, we only see this in the digital realm because it's artificially imposed. The law says that anyone who tries to extricate data from, e.g., Facebook will be severely punished, despite the fact that Facebook does not have a copyright interest in the data, and that as long as such extrication is done responsibly, it would have 0 impact on Facebook's ability to conduct its operations. That's an artificial barrier that we've concocted, and it's the only mechanism by which network effects can work in cyberspace. Without the legal risk, people would read the data out from Facebook and recast, repopulate, etc. in alternate hypermedia. People would also make writable interfaces available. Facebook would then have to compete on its ability to provide a superior user experience, like most other businesses, not the availability of the data that they've misappropriated from users. Social networks like Facebook have forced themselves between the open network and the data that used to be exposed to it, insisting that all traffic must be subject to their conditions. There's no reason to allow that! Once the online marketplace is subject to the same types of competition that exist in the physical marketplace, i.e., once everyone is allowed to compete over the same core of knowledge, things are going to drastically improve.
    - 10y ago
- LeftTriangle 10y ago
  > With improved laws, no one would be able to hold the web-accessible data hostage Could you explain this statement further? The way I'm interpreting it, it doesn't make any sense at all.
- icantdrive55 10y ago
  "With improved laws, no one would be able to hold the web-accessible data hostage, and competition would be based on consumer-facing concerns like user experience and customer service." Yes--we need to take control of our data, and personal information. We need a stronger version of Europe's ePrivacy Act. We need all servers to permently delete our data if we wish. (Hell--it would help small consumer websites. I don't shop at small websites anyone because I just don't trust them. If I knew by law, they needed to delete all my data I might start giving them business again?) Yes--Facebook, and Google will fight hard! They will cry! And they will cry more! And yes, we might need to re-enter our data. I will make time. The time has come--they abused us.
TIMECUB3 10y ago
I'm confused. What aren't you pleased about? An ad network shutting down? Hopefully they all shut down.
- GuiA 10y ago
  The Deck was one of the few clean players. I still fundamentally think advertising is slime, a form of mind control, and a symptom of excess consumption in society, but that's not changing anytime soon. In the meantime, I'd be very happy if everyone were like The Deck.
  - deep_12 10y ago
    https://youtu.be/z8wWuLnj6JI https://youtu.be/z8wWuLnj6JI Finally Sunil Grover fight back with Kapil sharma watch the video
  - ivv 10y ago
    Advertising is a symptom not of excess consumption but of excess production. And all communication is a form of mind control.
    - holri 10y ago
      Advertising is the propaganda of capitalism.
  - galfarragem 10y ago
    Clean players on shady markets usually don't do well on the long term.
  - basseq 10y ago
    The Deck was one of the few networks I explicitly white-listed in my ad blocker.

cookiecaper 10y ago

You don't need a walled garden for that. You would need some client-side listeners. Walled gardens arise because our legal system incentivizes it. Network effects are unnatural online. There is no barrier to access or information flow here -- put simply, there are no real walls to protect the garden. They're all artificially imposed barriers. With improved laws, no one would be able to hold the web-accessible data hostage, and competition would be based on consumer-facing concerns like user experience and customer service. Until we get to that point, which makes up the foundation of all competition in the physical world, the potential of the internet will continue to be squandered. It's very important to wake people up to these issues, since no one really seems to discuss them.

caseysoftware 10y ago
> Network effects are unnatural online. I find this line ironic since the Network Effect (or Metcalfe's Law) was created to describe literal computer networks. Network effects don't happen in the physical world nearly as easily because the bar, grocery store, or whatever is limited by geography. They can only address a population within a certain radius and can't grow beyond it. Transportation hubs - like airports - may be an exception because the more places you can get from one airport, the more likely you are to use that airport.. if you even have a choice.
- cookiecaper 10y ago
  >I find this line ironic since the Network Effect (or Metcalfe's Law) was created to describe literal computer networks. The distinction is that it refers to physical networks (and iirc, referred initially to phone systems, not computer systems per se). At layer 1, the network effect is still very much valid and caused by the capabilities of the physical hardware. This is forgotten because today everyone is plugged into the same network. This was not always the case. Because Metcalfe's Law exists, people have misunderstood it to apply to cyberspace and incorrectly believed it's simply the way things have to be. This is not so. The compatibility concern at the core of real network effects, where the hardware buy will be dictated by what the most neighbors have, are not relevant once you have a physical hookup. In cyberspace, layers 2 and up, there is no physical limitation on compatibility. There are only digits (hence the term "digital") upon which computations are made (hence "computers"). If the correct computations can be performed (i.e., if you possess hardware that can convert the electrical pulses to the expected digits and software (drivers, browsers, etc.) that can decode the digits to match expectations), the desired data can be presented. Since network effects refer exclusively to physical compatibility, we only see this in the digital realm because it's artificially imposed. The law says that anyone who tries to extricate data from, e.g., Facebook will be severely punished, despite the fact that Facebook does not have a copyright interest in the data, and that as long as such extrication is done responsibly, it would have 0 impact on Facebook's ability to conduct its operations. That's an artificial barrier that we've concocted, and it's the only mechanism by which network effects can work in cyberspace. Without the legal risk, people would read the data out from Facebook and recast, repopulate, etc. in alternate hypermedia. People would also make writable interfaces available. Facebook would then have to compete on its ability to provide a superior user experience, like most other businesses, not the availability of the data that they've misappropriated from users. Social networks like Facebook have forced themselves between the open network and the data that used to be exposed to it, insisting that all traffic must be subject to their conditions. There's no reason to allow that! Once the online marketplace is subject to the same types of competition that exist in the physical marketplace, i.e., once everyone is allowed to compete over the same core of knowledge, things are going to drastically improve.
  - 10y ago
LeftTriangle 10y ago
> With improved laws, no one would be able to hold the web-accessible data hostage Could you explain this statement further? The way I'm interpreting it, it doesn't make any sense at all.
icantdrive55 10y ago
"With improved laws, no one would be able to hold the web-accessible data hostage, and competition would be based on consumer-facing concerns like user experience and customer service." Yes--we need to take control of our data, and personal information. We need a stronger version of Europe's ePrivacy Act. We need all servers to permently delete our data if we wish. (Hell--it would help small consumer websites. I don't shop at small websites anyone because I just don't trust them. If I knew by law, they needed to delete all my data I might start giving them business again?) Yes--Facebook, and Google will fight hard! They will cry! And they will cry more! And yes, we might need to re-enter our data. I will make time. The time has come--they abused us.

TIMECUB3 10y ago

I'm confused. What aren't you pleased about? An ad network shutting down? Hopefully they all shut down.

GuiA 10y ago
The Deck was one of the few clean players. I still fundamentally think advertising is slime, a form of mind control, and a symptom of excess consumption in society, but that's not changing anytime soon. In the meantime, I'd be very happy if everyone were like The Deck.
- deep_12 10y ago
  https://youtu.be/z8wWuLnj6JI https://youtu.be/z8wWuLnj6JI Finally Sunil Grover fight back with Kapil sharma watch the video
- ivv 10y ago
  Advertising is a symptom not of excess consumption but of excess production. And all communication is a form of mind control.
  - holri 10y ago
    Advertising is the propaganda of capitalism.
- galfarragem 10y ago
  Clean players on shady markets usually don't do well on the long term.
- basseq 10y ago
  The Deck was one of the few networks I explicitly white-listed in my ad blocker.