3 ms·
I'm not so sure if the neoclassical general equilbrium theory applies so aptly to social constructs. Interesting approach, and I guess it gets the author's poin
by grenoire 10y ago
I'm not so sure if the neoclassical general equilbrium theory applies so aptly to social constructs. Interesting approach, and I guess it gets the author's point across..
- HenryBemis 10y agoDynamics are not the same (as they were in the 80s). Although the principles of supply/demand tend to be the same, we are talking about product/service that sucks in the "naive" users that fail to see the end-game and only see the cat photos. Addiction plays a huge role and Facebook is playing its cards very well. "Tipping point" speed is x100 nowadays.
- trendia 10y agoI'm kinda suspicious of how it's used here, too. What exactly is the "price" that consumers pay when they use Facebook? Their time? Their generation of content? What exactly is the product that's offered? Connections to their friends? News articles? It seems that Facebook simultaneously acts as a supplier (of connections to people / news) and a consumer (of connections to people / news). So, it's not really clear what the 'price' and 'quantity' axes really represent in reality.
- marcosdumay 10y agoThe article is exactly about this.
- trendia 10y agoThe article talks a lot about how the price changes, but doesn't explicitly say what the price represents.
- marcosdumay 10y agoIt's quite literal about price for advertisers, and not so literal on revenue sharing for publishers. It explains what it is talking about both times, and also explains that talking about price for readers is nonsense.
- r00fus 10y agonot Time but Attention and their capacity to consume, disseminate and promote ads. Your complaint would probably also apply equally well to Google as both are tech ad networks at their financial core.