4 ms·

> They've now come along to start messing with the privacy to start selling ads. It is insane that they're able to make such a mess of this. Is there a word for

> They've now come along to start messing with the privacy to start selling ads. It is insane that they're able to make such a mess of this. Is there a word for anti-innovation? Yes, "capitalism". The problem with capitalism is that despite lofty claims about it spurring on innovation and such, it pretty much does the opposite. I don't imagine that this will be a popular comment on here, but alas, it is how it is. Innovation means experimentation with uncertain outcomes, but humans (including investors) generally dislike uncertainty in their lives. Those two factors combined mean that from a capitalist perspective, it makes a lot more sense to invest in a tried-and-true method with a veneer of innovation but predictable returns, than to truly innovate. If you truly want innovation, then what you need to do is to take away the personal cost of failure (including but not limited to financially) as much as possible - across the board. The VC startup model is often claimed to do this, but really it just moves the cost of failure to the investors, it does not eliminate it. In a capitalist socioeconomic model, where having a cost of failure is a fundamental tenet of the ideology (it's what defines the hierarchy), this sort of "anti-innovation" will always keep happening. It's simply the logical thing to do under the circumstances.

deckard1 6y ago
> it pretty much does the opposite. I don't imagine that this will be a popular comment on here Silicon Valley and HN talk the talk of innovation, but they back monopolists. Time and again you will see this. Peter Thiel argues for this in his "Competition Is For Losers" talk. The constant theme is this: we want innovation so far as it can bring about abrupt and massive growth and lead to a single company dominating a market. Uber, AirBnb, Facebook, Google, Amazon. These are all businesses backed by VC that are by design monopolies. They create the market and own it. Or, like Uber and AirBnb, they overturn the old order and toss up a wall around it. Profit is at odds with competition. Once a business reaches a certain size, the organization no longer needs innovation. It's much easier to buy rather than build. Building requires figuring out product-market-fit and it's much cheaper and faster to buy a company that already figured that out. That's also why you can have a world-class R&D lab like Xerox and see all of your innovations brought to market by outsiders (Apple + Microsoft in the '80s). Your organization is not necessarily equipped to understand how to utilize the innovations it creates. It doesn't understand how to sell or market the inventions. So it doesn't. > If you truly want innovation, then what you need to do is to take away the personal cost of failure We already reduce financial risk with bankruptcy laws. Reducing risk is one thing, but if you lean too far into that with VC money you can end up with WeWork or Theranos. Or any of the 2000s dot-com. Businesses that are little more than inflating worthless assets for some fraudulent payoff. Reducing risk isn't the key. You need skin in the game. But more important, you need people with drive. People that like winning more than they hate losing.
- joepie91_ 6y ago
  You're correct that startups are designed with the intention of monopolization; however, they don't do so through innovation. They do so through "disruption", which is generally just ignoring regulations and applying a veneer of innovation to it, which is my point. > We already reduce financial risk with bankruptcy laws. This is not sufficient. Bankrupcy laws don't pay people's bills while they try out something new and uncertain. > Reducing risk is one thing, but if you lean too far into that with VC money [...] I'm arguing that VC money isn't a way to reduce risk. It just shifts the risk. > Reducing risk isn't the key. You need skin in the game. But more important, you need people with drive. People that like winning more than they hate losing. Sorry, but this is feel-good motivational-speaker nonsense with an undertone of toxic masculinity. Actual research into motivation shows pretty consistently that people are intrinsically motivated so long as their basic needs are met. (Which capitalism doesn't.)

deckard1 6y ago

> it pretty much does the opposite. I don't imagine that this will be a popular comment on here Silicon Valley and HN talk the talk of innovation, but they back monopolists. Time and again you will see this. Peter Thiel argues for this in his "Competition Is For Losers" talk. The constant theme is this: we want innovation so far as it can bring about abrupt and massive growth and lead to a single company dominating a market. Uber, AirBnb, Facebook, Google, Amazon. These are all businesses backed by VC that are by design monopolies. They create the market and own it. Or, like Uber and AirBnb, they overturn the old order and toss up a wall around it. Profit is at odds with competition. Once a business reaches a certain size, the organization no longer needs innovation. It's much easier to buy rather than build. Building requires figuring out product-market-fit and it's much cheaper and faster to buy a company that already figured that out. That's also why you can have a world-class R&D lab like Xerox and see all of your innovations brought to market by outsiders (Apple + Microsoft in the '80s). Your organization is not necessarily equipped to understand how to utilize the innovations it creates. It doesn't understand how to sell or market the inventions. So it doesn't. > If you truly want innovation, then what you need to do is to take away the personal cost of failure We already reduce financial risk with bankruptcy laws. Reducing risk is one thing, but if you lean too far into that with VC money you can end up with WeWork or Theranos. Or any of the 2000s dot-com. Businesses that are little more than inflating worthless assets for some fraudulent payoff. Reducing risk isn't the key. You need skin in the game. But more important, you need people with drive. People that like winning more than they hate losing.

joepie91_ 6y ago
You're correct that startups are designed with the intention of monopolization; however, they don't do so through innovation. They do so through "disruption", which is generally just ignoring regulations and applying a veneer of innovation to it, which is my point. > We already reduce financial risk with bankruptcy laws. This is not sufficient. Bankrupcy laws don't pay people's bills while they try out something new and uncertain. > Reducing risk is one thing, but if you lean too far into that with VC money [...] I'm arguing that VC money isn't a way to reduce risk. It just shifts the risk. > Reducing risk isn't the key. You need skin in the game. But more important, you need people with drive. People that like winning more than they hate losing. Sorry, but this is feel-good motivational-speaker nonsense with an undertone of toxic masculinity. Actual research into motivation shows pretty consistently that people are intrinsically motivated so long as their basic needs are met. (Which capitalism doesn't.)