4 ms·

Who deems what is "productive"? I've seen plenty of apps that were really great get turned into shit because they were monetized or put under new leadership. S

Who deems what is "productive"? I've seen plenty of apps that were really great get turned into shit because they were monetized or put under new leadership. See Snapchat, Instagram, WhatsApp, and Reddit.

birdyrooster 7y ago
Profits for the preferred or majority shareholders has become synonymous with productivity
stickfigure 7y ago
Who deems what is "productive"? The people paying for it. If nobody is willing to pay for your product/service, you have a hobby, not a business. Hobbies that cost billions of dollars a year don't usually last, unless the hobbyist is a Gates or Bezos.
hannasanarion 7y ago
Facebook. The infamous news feed used to be an actual feed that showed you everything your friends posted, not an algorithmic hellscape of fake news and ads. Sharyl Sandberg pushed to turn it into an advertising vehicle in 2012 because a social network that puts users first isn't profitable.
cortesoft 7y ago
The market is pretty good at determining where resources should be allocated, as long as we mitigate the known shortcomings of a market economy - externalities, tragedy of the commons, etc. I agree that I wish that not every app was designed to be VC style - grow to be huge, with large revenue and expenses. I do think there are plenty of examples of smaller, not VC growth type companies... they just, by definition, aren't as big and popular as the high growth, large audience, ones.
- ndarwincorn 7y ago
  > as long as we mitigate the known shortcomings of a market economy - externalities, tragedy of the commons, etc. Pretty loaded caveat there. I can't think of a market economy that's actually existed where we've adequately internalized externalities and protected the commons.
  - cortesoft 7y ago
    Not going to argue, but what are you suggesting we do instead? I think we work on adding those safe guards as best we can, rather than throw out the entirety of a market economy.
    - ndarwincorn 7y ago
      A fair point, and I don't have a silver bullet. But wherever we talk about markets optimizing utility we need to acknowledge that to-date that's purely theoretical, and hand-waving away externalities and the commons has brought the entire planet to the brink of ecological collapse. In some ways, the tyranny and 'sub-optimal' allocation of central planning seems preferable. I'm more on the mandatory cooperative enterprise boat. But like I said, I don't have a good solution.
      - cortesoft 7y ago
        I think if you are going to point out that every market economy has failed to properly handle externalities, you also should acknowledge that every centrally planned forced cooperative has ended up run by abusive leaders who do not take care of their citizens. All systems are going to have powerful people who work the system for their own gain... mitigating that is the primary problem of government design.
        ndarwincorn 7y ago
        > you also should acknowledge that every centrally planned forced cooperative has ended up run by abusive leaders who do not take care of their citizens. I mean, that's my point. That abusive leaders who do not take care of their citizens in an economy centrally planned to not destroy the Earth is preferable to a "free" one that does. It's a false dichotomy. The capitalist world has included horrible authoritarian governments that have perpetuated the same atrocities against humans as your "abusive leaders", just like these centrally planned economies haven't exactly been environmental stewards. All else equal, I'm saying that I'd prefer a sub-optimal centrally planned economy that guaranteed strong environmental protections.

birdyrooster 7y ago

Profits for the preferred or majority shareholders has become synonymous with productivity

stickfigure 7y ago

Who deems what is "productive"? The people paying for it. If nobody is willing to pay for your product/service, you have a hobby, not a business. Hobbies that cost billions of dollars a year don't usually last, unless the hobbyist is a Gates or Bezos.

hannasanarion 7y ago

Facebook. The infamous news feed used to be an actual feed that showed you everything your friends posted, not an algorithmic hellscape of fake news and ads. Sharyl Sandberg pushed to turn it into an advertising vehicle in 2012 because a social network that puts users first isn't profitable.

cortesoft 7y ago

The market is pretty good at determining where resources should be allocated, as long as we mitigate the known shortcomings of a market economy - externalities, tragedy of the commons, etc. I agree that I wish that not every app was designed to be VC style - grow to be huge, with large revenue and expenses. I do think there are plenty of examples of smaller, not VC growth type companies... they just, by definition, aren't as big and popular as the high growth, large audience, ones.

ndarwincorn 7y ago
> as long as we mitigate the known shortcomings of a market economy - externalities, tragedy of the commons, etc. Pretty loaded caveat there. I can't think of a market economy that's actually existed where we've adequately internalized externalities and protected the commons.
- cortesoft 7y ago
  Not going to argue, but what are you suggesting we do instead? I think we work on adding those safe guards as best we can, rather than throw out the entirety of a market economy.
  - ndarwincorn 7y ago
    A fair point, and I don't have a silver bullet. But wherever we talk about markets optimizing utility we need to acknowledge that to-date that's purely theoretical, and hand-waving away externalities and the commons has brought the entire planet to the brink of ecological collapse. In some ways, the tyranny and 'sub-optimal' allocation of central planning seems preferable. I'm more on the mandatory cooperative enterprise boat. But like I said, I don't have a good solution.
    - cortesoft 7y ago
      I think if you are going to point out that every market economy has failed to properly handle externalities, you also should acknowledge that every centrally planned forced cooperative has ended up run by abusive leaders who do not take care of their citizens. All systems are going to have powerful people who work the system for their own gain... mitigating that is the primary problem of government design.
      - ndarwincorn 7y ago
        > you also should acknowledge that every centrally planned forced cooperative has ended up run by abusive leaders who do not take care of their citizens. I mean, that's my point. That abusive leaders who do not take care of their citizens in an economy centrally planned to not destroy the Earth is preferable to a "free" one that does. It's a false dichotomy. The capitalist world has included horrible authoritarian governments that have perpetuated the same atrocities against humans as your "abusive leaders", just like these centrally planned economies haven't exactly been environmental stewards. All else equal, I'm saying that I'd prefer a sub-optimal centrally planned economy that guaranteed strong environmental protections.