5 ms·

Then replace niche with untapped potential, something that's needed, dozens of other ways to say the same thing? For example, we could use "niche": > A situati

Then replace niche with untapped potential, something that's needed, dozens of other ways to say the same thing? For example, we could use "niche": > A situation or activity specially suited to a person's interests, abilities, or nature but I just realized that wouldn't fit at all. But you get the idea of what I meant when I said niche, right? I see people wanting to throw money at other people, and they will find a way, either way. Not providing them a way before they make their own is "leaving money on the table", if you will.

dragonwriter 8y ago
I'm not taking issue with the word niche, I'm saying it's not a market, niche, whatever that there is a economic incentive to fill. The gap is serving those unserved by the incumbents.
- PavlovsCat 8y ago
  So there is a gap, there are unserved people (with unspent money), but there is no niche, no market and no economic incentive.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    No, again, I'm saying the gap/niche/market/whatever is the specific unserved groups, not unconditional service. Which is why even when people try to exploit a perceived gap by pitching unconditional service, all it does is become a service for the specific groups excluded by the current incumbents. Let's say the incumbents cut out virulent racists, for example: then their is a open niche for service to virulent racists. There's not for unconditional service, because, but for (in this hypothetical) except for virulent racists, there's no one left unserved by the existing, albeit potentially conditional, service.
    - PavlovsCat 8y ago
      A catchall email in practice receives mails for the specific usernames that are in the specific mails it gets, but saying "it serves * minus the accounts that exist" is much simpler. After it was already made that simple, why make it complicated again? > Let's say the incumbents cut out virulent racists So what are you driving at? Just some racists, now and from here on out, so no loss? And what's a "virulent racist", a racist that makes other people racist by mere contact? If that word means nothing, why was it added? Why was that example chosen over Naomi Wu, for example? By definition, services that play these games cut out anyone who does not want to empower such arbitrarily acting and unaccountable gatekeepers. That's what the law is for, for actual society. Silicon Valley is clearly not up to the task, these virtual kingdoms are demented, that stuff should be for video games and private forums, not platforms that speak of community or society. They want to receive from society, but not fulfill their duties to society. Free speech is not an optional luxury, and mobs out to destroy livelihoods and doing their virtual lynch justice stuff are not benign. People who on average can't deal with people that well, even on a small scale and face to face, cannot be in charge of large systems that affect the social lives and livelihoods of massive amounts of people. It's not just a trainwreck, it was kinda predictable.
      - dragonwriter 8y ago
        > So what are you driving at? There's no hidden message, the thesis is explicitly stated: “the gap/niche/market/whatever is the specific unserved groups, not unconditional service.” > Just some racists, now and from here on out, so no loss? No, there was no hidden value judgement in the hypothetical. It would be the same, mutatis mutandis, if the excluded group were, say, African-Americans rather than virulent racists; there is demand for services for the specific unserved groups but—and experience, not just theory, shows this is the case—there isn't a “niche” for “serves everybody within the law” caused by the kind of incumbent companies at issue excluding some particular groups. The niche that is opened is serving specifically the excluded groups. This was a factual response about market realities to the upthread claim about what niche was opened, not some kind of covert value judgement about who deserves service. > Silicon Valley is clearly not up to the task, these virtual kingdoms are demented, that stuff should be for video games and private forums, not platforms that speak of community or society. They want to receive from society, but not fulfill their duties to society. Exercising judgement in what ideas one relays is a duty to society, and enabling that is the core point of freedom of speech. > Free speech is not an optional luxury Indeed it is not, so why would you deny it to the firms you are pointing to? > and mobs out to destroy livelihoods and doing their virtual lynch justice stuff are not benign. Comparing deplatforming to lynching is ludicrous and disgusting.

dragonwriter 8y ago

I'm not taking issue with the word niche, I'm saying it's not a market, niche, whatever that there is a economic incentive to fill. The gap is serving those unserved by the incumbents.

PavlovsCat 8y ago
So there is a gap, there are unserved people (with unspent money), but there is no niche, no market and no economic incentive.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  No, again, I'm saying the gap/niche/market/whatever is the specific unserved groups, not unconditional service. Which is why even when people try to exploit a perceived gap by pitching unconditional service, all it does is become a service for the specific groups excluded by the current incumbents. Let's say the incumbents cut out virulent racists, for example: then their is a open niche for service to virulent racists. There's not for unconditional service, because, but for (in this hypothetical) except for virulent racists, there's no one left unserved by the existing, albeit potentially conditional, service.
  - PavlovsCat 8y ago
    A catchall email in practice receives mails for the specific usernames that are in the specific mails it gets, but saying "it serves * minus the accounts that exist" is much simpler. After it was already made that simple, why make it complicated again? > Let's say the incumbents cut out virulent racists So what are you driving at? Just some racists, now and from here on out, so no loss? And what's a "virulent racist", a racist that makes other people racist by mere contact? If that word means nothing, why was it added? Why was that example chosen over Naomi Wu, for example? By definition, services that play these games cut out anyone who does not want to empower such arbitrarily acting and unaccountable gatekeepers. That's what the law is for, for actual society. Silicon Valley is clearly not up to the task, these virtual kingdoms are demented, that stuff should be for video games and private forums, not platforms that speak of community or society. They want to receive from society, but not fulfill their duties to society. Free speech is not an optional luxury, and mobs out to destroy livelihoods and doing their virtual lynch justice stuff are not benign. People who on average can't deal with people that well, even on a small scale and face to face, cannot be in charge of large systems that affect the social lives and livelihoods of massive amounts of people. It's not just a trainwreck, it was kinda predictable.
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      > So what are you driving at? There's no hidden message, the thesis is explicitly stated: “the gap/niche/market/whatever is the specific unserved groups, not unconditional service.” > Just some racists, now and from here on out, so no loss? No, there was no hidden value judgement in the hypothetical. It would be the same, mutatis mutandis, if the excluded group were, say, African-Americans rather than virulent racists; there is demand for services for the specific unserved groups but—and experience, not just theory, shows this is the case—there isn't a “niche” for “serves everybody within the law” caused by the kind of incumbent companies at issue excluding some particular groups. The niche that is opened is serving specifically the excluded groups. This was a factual response about market realities to the upthread claim about what niche was opened, not some kind of covert value judgement about who deserves service. > Silicon Valley is clearly not up to the task, these virtual kingdoms are demented, that stuff should be for video games and private forums, not platforms that speak of community or society. They want to receive from society, but not fulfill their duties to society. Exercising judgement in what ideas one relays is a duty to society, and enabling that is the core point of freedom of speech. > Free speech is not an optional luxury Indeed it is not, so why would you deny it to the firms you are pointing to? > and mobs out to destroy livelihoods and doing their virtual lynch justice stuff are not benign. Comparing deplatforming to lynching is ludicrous and disgusting.