17 ms·

Status, Wealth, & Power: Network Effects Demand a New Social Contract

123 points by domrdy 5y ago

voidhorse 5y ago
Nothing will change so long as we continue to stick with the outmodded, hypercapitalist notion of an economy defined purely monetarily. Money erases all actual social values and establishes only exchange value (abstracted from things that are actually important, like the fact that a vast majority of exchanges are destructive for the species and probably shouldn’t be happening) thus we’ve let ecosystems basically reach the point of collapse. A proper economy needs to be general in Bataille’s sense. It needs to incorporate social goods as its measure, not just abstractions like gdp and exchange value. This article is right that society has failed to adapt to rapidly proliferating digital technologies, leading to the complete erosion of social structures, without sufficient replacements, but in my estimation it does not go far enough Much of Bernard Stiegler’s work centers around establishing such alternatives: https://arsindustrialis.org/manifesto-2010 https://arsindustrialis.org/manifesto-2010
cma 5y ago
This may not be popular here because a lot of Ycombinator's wealth depends on this not happening, but competition laws need to change to allow developers/taxi drivers/home renters/etc. to collude openly against platforms. Shareholders get to collude, even against consumers, by merging companies, and the government goes to great lengths to give specific minority shareholder rights to boost the collusion. But a group of small businesses don't get to if they don't merge; I think they should be able to collude against platforms backed by network effects, hardware lock in, etc., I'm not saying they should be able to collude against consumers.
- tehjoker 5y ago
  For what it's worth, home renters already have that right. The right to organize is enshrined in law and tenant organizing is regarded as an important fight against the landlords.
helen___keller 5y ago
> And we believe it’s up to tech Founders, VC’s and employees to do something about it. It’s up to us. Governments and other traditional forms of hierarchical power are ill-equipped to understand the network economy and evolve the new social contract. Hard pass, I'll take a social contract defined through democracy every time. Founders and investors, in particular, are uniquely unqualified to evolve the social contract because they have overwhelming financial interests.
- tut-urut-utut 5y ago
  Founders, investors, successful business owners and CEOs are more likely to show sociopathic behaviour than the average person next door. They are the least competent group to be given power to shape any societal rules and contracts or to define how the humanity should look like.
  - namlem 5y ago
    Exactly. If anything, we need to transition to a democratic model based at least in part on sortition. Randomly selected citizens assemblies have already shown promise in Ireland, France, and elsewhere.
    - Grim-444 5y ago
      How do you ensure the people that are selected have any significant level of intelligence, or desire to better their country rather than just themselves, or have any applicable life experience or knowledge that would lead them to make good, wise, decisions? How can you ensure that if it's a random selection?
      - furgooswft13 5y ago
        We don't ensure any of that currently for any of our politicians. In fact the system we have in place now has perverse incentives to ensure exactly the opposite, both on intelligence and self-interest. So a purely random selection would seem like an improvement at this point.
dantheman 5y ago
The Social Contract is one of the most misleading ideas that has ever been created - it's not a contract, and it's not voluntary. It's a sleight of hand, to for those in power to justify the use of force of on others.
- nickbauman 5y ago
  If you live in a society, you agree to abide by its rules or to move to a different society that better suits you if they will accept you. Otherwise you are a renegade. I don't see how this is avoidable. A state is considered intact if the government has a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. A state can become predatory if they abuse that legitimacy, but other than that, if the government loses its monopoly, you have what is referred to as a failed state.
  - Proven 5y ago
    > If you live in a society, you agree to abide by its rules or to move to a different society that better suits you if they will accept you. Otherwise you are a renegade. Wut??? How can a person living on their own land be a renegade?
  - yCombLinks 5y ago
    Yes, I'd say that agrees with the definition of involuntary. Do what we say, or give up everything you have and leave.
    - commandlinefan 5y ago
      > give up everything you have and leave To nowhere, since there's nowhere else to go.
    - nickbauman 5y ago
      Yeah otherwise laws don't mean anything, right? It's free-for-all. From "stopping at a Red light is optional" to Vigilanteism. Can you explain how that would work? Would you want to live in that kind of state?
AlexandrB 5y ago
This reads as though written by someone who has never experienced being on the losing side (the long tail) of all the systems they're advocating for. It utterly fails to answer why anyone not at the top of the power curve would want society to be structured this way - most of the described "Social Contract" seems to imply precarity, replacability, and living at the edge of financial disaster for most. Meanwhile, there's little mention that those who hold real power in this kind of system are not part of the curve at all but are those choosing the algorithms and AI systems that rank everyone else. Then there's this: > Trickle down doesn’t work because it existed in a hierarchical structure based on the scale production technologies of the times before 2000. There was much more friction in that old system. But in a network economy, the means of production have shifted. It’s 10X more fluid, can create wealth at a much higher rate, decrease costs at a much higher rate, and the network can raise all boats. To me this reads as "Trickle down didn't work last time, but this time it's different and it'll definitely work". How it will work this time is left as an exercise to the reader.
- cryptica 5y ago
  Agreed. Moreover, it's infuriating when people claim that 'technology' is responsible for changing the dynamics when they know (or should know) perfectly well that things like inequality and monopolies are caused by monetary policies which subsidize large capital-holders and thus give them an unfair advantage in the markets. Also, to claim that 'the rich keep getting richer' has always been true is misleading, it's far worse today than ever before because our monetary system has never been so decoupled from the underlying economic processes of value creation. This means our system is more unfair than it has ever been before. There is almost no correlation between skill and success; on the other hand there is a significant correlation between cheating and success.
- Ensorceled 5y ago
  Trickle down didn't work in the late 1900s either. Nor in the late 1800s when it was called "horse and sparrow". It just doesn't work.
  - AlexandrB 5y ago
tehjoker 5y ago
This guy wants to pretend globalization and monopolistic private ownership of networks is part of a futuristic society instead of just a naked power grab where production moves to the lowest paid location globally and the superrich use monopolist and cartel tactics to create huge spy networks to guard their hoard.
lettergram 5y ago
I recommend the PBS documentary on the fed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RbL8lTsITY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RbL8lTsITY Imo we need to change the social contract back to what it originally was. The fed has too much power and its been used (perhaps inadvertently) to centralize power further. There’s a reason the bank of the US was abolished back in the 1800s. Also, I think most people forget just how diverse the U.S. is. A great example: I don’t think guns are necessarily good in the city. But in the country I need a gun because I have mountain lions and bears in the area (and county sheriffs would take an hour or more to respond). So federal gun laws don’t make a ton of sense. States don’t have the same interests (see Florida vs Washington state) nor ethos. The way the US stayed together was each state was sovereign. Some authority was seeded to the federal government for the betterment of all. That being said, both political parties are attempting to consolidate power, and neither likes what the other wants. Imo the premise is correct we need a new social contract, but imo we need to reinstate the one we already had.
- brightball 5y ago
  You really nailed it here. We need the freedom to disagree. Federal power leaves no room for disagreement. At a state level, people have the freedom to move to another state.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
    Technically people have the freedom to move to a different country too. You make moving to another state sound trivially easy.
    - furgooswft13 5y ago
      Compared to moving to another country? Yes it absolutely is. There are no legal impediments for moving to and living/working in another state for a US citizen. This in contrast to even the EU, where despite freedom of movement, there are significant legal restrictions/requirments depending on state/jurisdiction for permanent alien residency. The only real impediment to moving between states as a US citizen is financial and social, but this is the case literally everywhere, even intrastate.
motohagiography 5y ago
While I agree the network effects expose everyone to the power law distribution of outcomes, and awareness of that is and will continue to be jarring, you can mitigate those effects with privacy and distance. The problem isn't that people are rich or poor, it's that we have addictive technologies that prevent you from avoiding them. His premise requires this network cohesion and continuity stays the same or increases, where I think we're at the threshold of social re-balkanization, where the weak links in networks (social media, class, etc) simply collapse on their own weight into traditional strong sub-networks based on family, region, ideology, religion, ethnicity, etc. Whether you see that as reactionary against inevitable progress of history, or hope for survival, it's the counter-bet to what he's predicting. I disagree that a new equillibrium he predicts will be a cohesive cultural homogenization mediated by network technologies. Like some globalized China or Singapore. I think the social polarization we're seeing now is an example of weak-link network collapse in very fast motion, and an example is social-credit/vaccine passports, where you are going to see the resurgence of subcultures to the point of internecine civil conflict over them and measures like them. I would make a bigger bet on all-against-all conflict than what he in-effect describes as an efficient, China style, dominating, technologically empowered planned elite. As someone who has spent a lifetime travelling in various subcultures, there will always been an underground, they will always be the future, they always prevail because that is where all non-linear growth comes from. The political middle and the comfortable have desire and symbolic comforts, but they do not have necessity and that's what makes me willing to always bet big against beliefs in a managed future. The whole thing is predicated on ideas like, "Don't worry, everything will be provided for you, except dignity, but soon everyone will have forgotten what that was anyway. It was the only thing standing in the way." When I hear sentiments that map to that, the only meaningful question to me is how to get short.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
4r4r4r 5y ago
One of the greatest paradoxes of our age is that countries like the USA and UK are, to a very limited extent, democracies. And yet, just about every political decision taken by these countries in the last 37 years, at the very least, has increased the powers of the Invisible Government while eroding the health, wealth, liberty, and happiness of the vast majority. How have they gotten away with recklessly risking the physical and biological foundations of life itself? How in heaven’s name has the vast majority served as cheerleaders for their own impoverishment? The answer to such questions is that the American edifice of exploitation, parasitism, enslavement, perpetual warfare, and ecocide rests on massive, mutually-supporting pillars. My encyclopedia and many articles I wrote about this subject establish the existence of just one pillar: Smears, incarcerations, and assassinations. Assassinations by themselves might work in a pure dictatorship. But in a system that has democratic pretensions, murders must be supplemented by other pillars. Here then is a glimpse of these pillars: 1. Cloak and Dagger: This pillar is obviously the focus of our interview. To secure more power and riches for its members, the Invisible Government often resorts to smears, incarcerations, and murders. It not only silences or murders its influential opponents, but it also targets innocent bystanders who might pose a threat to its power and goals. Also, when this serves its interests, the Invisible Government is perfectly willing to destroy junior members of its own cabal. 2. Reign of the Psychopaths: Apart from marginal, small-scale, instances of real democracies, all current political and economic systems on earth are conducive to the rise to power of conscience-less, irresponsible, self-seeking psychopaths. “We must admit to ourselves,” says Mike Krieger, “that there are truly evil geniuses out there, and in most cases these characters have taken control of the power structure.” 3. Total control of the banking system and of the issuing and coining of money. The critical importance of this aspect is captured in this article and in John Acton’s aphorism: “The issue which has swept down the centuries, and which will have to be fought sooner or later, is the people versus the banks.” 3. Sunshine Bribery: Eric Margolis’ witticism captures the sleaze of global politics: “It’s often cheaper to buy a legislator than a second-hand car.” 4. Information: From the movie, music, book, and school “industries,” to radio, TV, and newspapers, to online and offline encyclopedias, to bought experts and fake dissidents, to online search engines and social media—the Invisible Government controls most of our sources of information. As a result, all of us are, in varying degrees, denizens of Huxley’s Brave New World. 5. Human Nature. The Invisible Government capitalizes on a vast array of human failings to sustain and augment its riches and power. Here are just two examples of such failings. To begin with, we are all manifestly susceptible to indoctrination. This weakness is in turn exacerbated by the tendency to cling to “our” convictions in the face of overwhelming evidence against them. Carl Sagan once said: One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back. 6. Controlled, Manipulated, Trivialized, and Rigged Elections. “If voting made any difference,” Mark Twain observed, “they wouldn’t let us do it.” 7. Broken Electoral Promises. In the absence of real democracy, there is a vast gap between what politicians and parties pledge before elections and what they deliver after elections. Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, and Donald Trump, for instance, promised peace but, once elected, served the Invisible Government. Through guile, false-flag operations, and propaganda, they dragged (or, in Trump’s case, beginning to drag) their country to catastrophic wars. 8. Leading, Infiltrating, and Co-Opting the Opposition. This strategy incorporates Lenin’s alleged dictum that “the best way to control the opposition is to lead it.” Indeed, case-by-case studies show that most so-called reform organizations, alternative media outlets, and leading dissidents, serve the interests of the Invisible Government. Here is Hegel’s compatriot and personal acquaintance, the philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer: Hegel, installed from above, by the powers that be, as the certified Great Philosopher, was a flat-headed, insipid, nauseating, illiterate charlatan, who reached the pinnacle of audacity in scribbling together and dishing up the craziest mystifying nonsense. This nonsense has been noisily proclaimed as immortal wisdom by mercenary followers and readily accepted as such by all fools, who thus joined into as perfect a chorus of admiration as had ever been heard before. The extensive field of spiritual influence with which Hegel was furnished by those in power has enabled him to achieve the intellectual corruption of a whole generation.’ “ Nothing indeed is new under the sun. You only need to replace Hegel with such establishment-promoted “leading dissidents” as Chomsky, Zinn, Goodman, or the Cockburn brothers, to describe contemporary realities. 9. Contrived Terror and false-flag Operations. Thomas Jefferson commented on the adverse effects of wars on liberty and prosperity: “Having seen the people of all other nations bowed down to the earth under the wars and prodigalities of their rulers, I have cherished their opposites, peace, economy, and riddance of public debt, believing that these were the high road to public as well as private prosperity and happiness.” 10. The Conspiracy Theory Bogeyman. Most people had been taught what to think, not how to think. Hence, and thanks to the CIA-ingenious invention of the “conspiracy theory” mumbo jumbo, they cannot readily emerge from the cave of political illiteracy.
sergefaguet 5y ago
Glad that someone is talking about the reality of how things are. The death of the nation state and other hierarchical organizations and of broad-based democracy is written in the mathematical structures of networks. It just makes no sense to treat all nodes in a complex network equally since they are unequal by virtue of network structure itself. And it certainly makes no sense to create large C&C hierarchies when well-positioned nodes and clusters carry far more value and information. And reality does not tolerate inefficient structures in the name of ideology for long in the modern world especially since all ideology is variable and none fundamental. It will of course be covered up by various PR for a long time. But the writing is on the wall.
intended 5y ago
Network effects are at the heart of most of the tech/culture/economy discussions that crop up here. Aside from the very obvious company spin, this is a good stab at the issue. However, any system that rewards only 10% of its participants, is essentially Hollywood. It’s not sustainable, and people will simply check out. The only way to prevent that is to either change the odds, or to sell propaganda. I like the gambler/house analogy. It’s also has intuitive suggestions on how they can be handled. What is to stop governments from just taking over that spot? It’s perfect for what governments are meant to do, or think they are meant to do. “You will have access to training” is a few rungs below the “lift yourself up by your bootstraps”. Especially after acknowledging that only 10% of the population actually perform fast enough for the system to reward you.
- secabeen 5y ago
  > However, any system that rewards only 10% of its participants, is essentially Hollywood. It’s not sustainable, and people will simply check out. The only way to prevent that is to either change the odds, or to sell propaganda. Hollywood seems to reward a lot more than 10% of its participants. There are many thousands of people living middle-class lives as part of the movie business in Los Angeles and elsewhere. Much of their ability to do so is driven by the unions active in the entertainment industry and the protections they demand for non-superstar workers.
  - intended 5y ago
    Sorry, let me rephrase that- I’m describing reward distributions in different industries - for example holly wood actors or major league athletes. For each successful actor/athlete there are millions who never even saw the light of day. I am not talking about the larger business ecosystems, as those would exist for any industry.
gipp 5y ago
Other stuff aside, can we please not go around capitalizing the word "founder"? I've seen it before in a few other blogs that get posted here. Makes it sound like an exalted priesthood, and it's pretty nauseating.
- rcMgD2BwE72F 5y ago
  Maybe the issue is not how it is written but what it means to those who write the words. I also believe you're right about the cause (founders and technocrats are the new clergy).
disantlor 5y ago
Maybe part of the problem is in the first paragraph. Founders/VC types seem to think that being able to make money off of people's usage of your product is the same as "creating value" for those people. To take an extreme example, if someone says I'll burn down your house if you don't pay me, is value created? Ok and if an advertising based economy/culture creates a phony demand for something, and then people purchase that something, is value created?
quirkot 5y ago
The proposals presented here basically boil down to: You give up your privacy and I promise I won't use my big brother like knowledge of everything about you to force you under my thumb even further. I've seen this movie before and the deal always gets altered further
maerF0x0 5y ago
I cant help but observe that the "Power law" is more or less +1-2 SDs above mean... The network effect is leveraging those in the top (say) 5%ile across all people. Anyone with internet can use the software of the top 5% of programmers. Anyone with youtube can view the top 5% of Skateboarders (or whatever content) Etc. This concentrates all the wealth onto them. If we want to combat this concentrating force we need to also work on dispersion forces. We can ensure that those near the mean participate in the wins. For many this looks like equity. across society we need to be bringing this equity to the public markets sooner. If I were the SEC I'd be working on rules that say companies cannot block sale/liquidity of shares (it is one's property after all). This would help create liquidity for the lower&middle folks who get equity in small businesses and allow large institutions to bring this opportunity to all (via index ETFs). Then instead of holding shares in some small startup you could, for example, sell some and hold an entire pool of startups (VC style) and spread your time investment in a single company across many, without job hopping.
Comevius 5y ago
> And we believe it’s up to tech Founders, VC’s and employees to do something about it. Nobody stops Silicon Valley from saving the world, it's just that it is harder than creating Wi-Fi connected juicers and apps, even if that app is Facebook. I understand the hubris, everyone uses these apps, but getting people hooked on something we are predisposed to want like sugar, social media or loot boxes only qualifies you as a predator.
jonnycomputer 5y ago
When individuals are wealthy enough to pay a state's National Guard to deploy on the border, then they are too wealthy for a healthy democracy. (this is independent of whether you approve of sending them to the border, of what your opinion is on border/immigration issues).
raybon 5y ago
Interesting that NFX posts always get showcased in HN in front page.Plus, any top comments on other posts also link to NFX website. Guess there is a big pro NFX lobby lurking in HN.

123 points by domrdy 5y ago

Nothing will change so long as we continue to stick with the outmodded, hypercapitalist notion of an economy defined purely monetarily. Money erases all actual social values and establishes only exchange value (abstracted from things that are actually important, like the fact that a vast majority of exchanges are destructive for the species and probably shouldn’t be happening) thus we’ve let ecosystems basically reach the point of collapse. A proper economy needs to be general in Bataille’s sense. It needs to incorporate social goods as its measure, not just abstractions like gdp and exchange value. This article is right that society has failed to adapt to rapidly proliferating digital technologies, leading to the complete erosion of social structures, without sufficient replacements, but in my estimation it does not go far enough Much of Bernard Stiegler’s work centers around establishing such alternatives: https://arsindustrialis.org/manifesto-2010 https://arsindustrialis.org/manifesto-2010

cma 5y ago

This may not be popular here because a lot of Ycombinator's wealth depends on this not happening, but competition laws need to change to allow developers/taxi drivers/home renters/etc. to collude openly against platforms. Shareholders get to collude, even against consumers, by merging companies, and the government goes to great lengths to give specific minority shareholder rights to boost the collusion. But a group of small businesses don't get to if they don't merge; I think they should be able to collude against platforms backed by network effects, hardware lock in, etc., I'm not saying they should be able to collude against consumers.

tehjoker 5y ago
For what it's worth, home renters already have that right. The right to organize is enshrined in law and tenant organizing is regarded as an important fight against the landlords.

helen___keller 5y ago

> And we believe it’s up to tech Founders, VC’s and employees to do something about it. It’s up to us. Governments and other traditional forms of hierarchical power are ill-equipped to understand the network economy and evolve the new social contract. Hard pass, I'll take a social contract defined through democracy every time. Founders and investors, in particular, are uniquely unqualified to evolve the social contract because they have overwhelming financial interests.

tut-urut-utut 5y ago
Founders, investors, successful business owners and CEOs are more likely to show sociopathic behaviour than the average person next door. They are the least competent group to be given power to shape any societal rules and contracts or to define how the humanity should look like.
- namlem 5y ago
  Exactly. If anything, we need to transition to a democratic model based at least in part on sortition. Randomly selected citizens assemblies have already shown promise in Ireland, France, and elsewhere.
  - Grim-444 5y ago
    How do you ensure the people that are selected have any significant level of intelligence, or desire to better their country rather than just themselves, or have any applicable life experience or knowledge that would lead them to make good, wise, decisions? How can you ensure that if it's a random selection?
    - furgooswft13 5y ago
      We don't ensure any of that currently for any of our politicians. In fact the system we have in place now has perverse incentives to ensure exactly the opposite, both on intelligence and self-interest. So a purely random selection would seem like an improvement at this point.

dantheman 5y ago

The Social Contract is one of the most misleading ideas that has ever been created - it's not a contract, and it's not voluntary. It's a sleight of hand, to for those in power to justify the use of force of on others.

nickbauman 5y ago
If you live in a society, you agree to abide by its rules or to move to a different society that better suits you if they will accept you. Otherwise you are a renegade. I don't see how this is avoidable. A state is considered intact if the government has a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. A state can become predatory if they abuse that legitimacy, but other than that, if the government loses its monopoly, you have what is referred to as a failed state.
- Proven 5y ago
  > If you live in a society, you agree to abide by its rules or to move to a different society that better suits you if they will accept you. Otherwise you are a renegade. Wut??? How can a person living on their own land be a renegade?
- yCombLinks 5y ago
  Yes, I'd say that agrees with the definition of involuntary. Do what we say, or give up everything you have and leave.
  - commandlinefan 5y ago
    > give up everything you have and leave To nowhere, since there's nowhere else to go.
  - nickbauman 5y ago
    Yeah otherwise laws don't mean anything, right? It's free-for-all. From "stopping at a Red light is optional" to Vigilanteism. Can you explain how that would work? Would you want to live in that kind of state?

AlexandrB 5y ago

This reads as though written by someone who has never experienced being on the losing side (the long tail) of all the systems they're advocating for. It utterly fails to answer why anyone not at the top of the power curve would want society to be structured this way - most of the described "Social Contract" seems to imply precarity, replacability, and living at the edge of financial disaster for most. Meanwhile, there's little mention that those who hold real power in this kind of system are not part of the curve at all but are those choosing the algorithms and AI systems that rank everyone else. Then there's this: > Trickle down doesn’t work because it existed in a hierarchical structure based on the scale production technologies of the times before 2000. There was much more friction in that old system. But in a network economy, the means of production have shifted. It’s 10X more fluid, can create wealth at a much higher rate, decrease costs at a much higher rate, and the network can raise all boats. To me this reads as "Trickle down didn't work last time, but this time it's different and it'll definitely work". How it will work this time is left as an exercise to the reader.

cryptica 5y ago
Agreed. Moreover, it's infuriating when people claim that 'technology' is responsible for changing the dynamics when they know (or should know) perfectly well that things like inequality and monopolies are caused by monetary policies which subsidize large capital-holders and thus give them an unfair advantage in the markets. Also, to claim that 'the rich keep getting richer' has always been true is misleading, it's far worse today than ever before because our monetary system has never been so decoupled from the underlying economic processes of value creation. This means our system is more unfair than it has ever been before. There is almost no correlation between skill and success; on the other hand there is a significant correlation between cheating and success.
Ensorceled 5y ago
Trickle down didn't work in the late 1900s either. Nor in the late 1800s when it was called "horse and sparrow". It just doesn't work.
- AlexandrB 5y ago

tehjoker 5y ago

This guy wants to pretend globalization and monopolistic private ownership of networks is part of a futuristic society instead of just a naked power grab where production moves to the lowest paid location globally and the superrich use monopolist and cartel tactics to create huge spy networks to guard their hoard.

lettergram 5y ago

I recommend the PBS documentary on the fed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RbL8lTsITY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RbL8lTsITY Imo we need to change the social contract back to what it originally was. The fed has too much power and its been used (perhaps inadvertently) to centralize power further. There’s a reason the bank of the US was abolished back in the 1800s. Also, I think most people forget just how diverse the U.S. is. A great example: I don’t think guns are necessarily good in the city. But in the country I need a gun because I have mountain lions and bears in the area (and county sheriffs would take an hour or more to respond). So federal gun laws don’t make a ton of sense. States don’t have the same interests (see Florida vs Washington state) nor ethos. The way the US stayed together was each state was sovereign. Some authority was seeded to the federal government for the betterment of all. That being said, both political parties are attempting to consolidate power, and neither likes what the other wants. Imo the premise is correct we need a new social contract, but imo we need to reinstate the one we already had.

brightball 5y ago
You really nailed it here. We need the freedom to disagree. Federal power leaves no room for disagreement. At a state level, people have the freedom to move to another state.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
  Technically people have the freedom to move to a different country too. You make moving to another state sound trivially easy.
  - furgooswft13 5y ago
    Compared to moving to another country? Yes it absolutely is. There are no legal impediments for moving to and living/working in another state for a US citizen. This in contrast to even the EU, where despite freedom of movement, there are significant legal restrictions/requirments depending on state/jurisdiction for permanent alien residency. The only real impediment to moving between states as a US citizen is financial and social, but this is the case literally everywhere, even intrastate.

motohagiography 5y ago

While I agree the network effects expose everyone to the power law distribution of outcomes, and awareness of that is and will continue to be jarring, you can mitigate those effects with privacy and distance. The problem isn't that people are rich or poor, it's that we have addictive technologies that prevent you from avoiding them. His premise requires this network cohesion and continuity stays the same or increases, where I think we're at the threshold of social re-balkanization, where the weak links in networks (social media, class, etc) simply collapse on their own weight into traditional strong sub-networks based on family, region, ideology, religion, ethnicity, etc. Whether you see that as reactionary against inevitable progress of history, or hope for survival, it's the counter-bet to what he's predicting. I disagree that a new equillibrium he predicts will be a cohesive cultural homogenization mediated by network technologies. Like some globalized China or Singapore. I think the social polarization we're seeing now is an example of weak-link network collapse in very fast motion, and an example is social-credit/vaccine passports, where you are going to see the resurgence of subcultures to the point of internecine civil conflict over them and measures like them. I would make a bigger bet on all-against-all conflict than what he in-effect describes as an efficient, China style, dominating, technologically empowered planned elite. As someone who has spent a lifetime travelling in various subcultures, there will always been an underground, they will always be the future, they always prevail because that is where all non-linear growth comes from. The political middle and the comfortable have desire and symbolic comforts, but they do not have necessity and that's what makes me willing to always bet big against beliefs in a managed future. The whole thing is predicated on ideas like, "Don't worry, everything will be provided for you, except dignity, but soon everyone will have forgotten what that was anyway. It was the only thing standing in the way." When I hear sentiments that map to that, the only meaningful question to me is how to get short.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

4r4r4r 5y ago

One of the greatest paradoxes of our age is that countries like the USA and UK are, to a very limited extent, democracies. And yet, just about every political decision taken by these countries in the last 37 years, at the very least, has increased the powers of the Invisible Government while eroding the health, wealth, liberty, and happiness of the vast majority. How have they gotten away with recklessly risking the physical and biological foundations of life itself? How in heaven’s name has the vast majority served as cheerleaders for their own impoverishment? The answer to such questions is that the American edifice of exploitation, parasitism, enslavement, perpetual warfare, and ecocide rests on massive, mutually-supporting pillars. My encyclopedia and many articles I wrote about this subject establish the existence of just one pillar: Smears, incarcerations, and assassinations. Assassinations by themselves might work in a pure dictatorship. But in a system that has democratic pretensions, murders must be supplemented by other pillars. Here then is a glimpse of these pillars: 1. Cloak and Dagger: This pillar is obviously the focus of our interview. To secure more power and riches for its members, the Invisible Government often resorts to smears, incarcerations, and murders. It not only silences or murders its influential opponents, but it also targets innocent bystanders who might pose a threat to its power and goals. Also, when this serves its interests, the Invisible Government is perfectly willing to destroy junior members of its own cabal. 2. Reign of the Psychopaths: Apart from marginal, small-scale, instances of real democracies, all current political and economic systems on earth are conducive to the rise to power of conscience-less, irresponsible, self-seeking psychopaths. “We must admit to ourselves,” says Mike Krieger, “that there are truly evil geniuses out there, and in most cases these characters have taken control of the power structure.” 3. Total control of the banking system and of the issuing and coining of money. The critical importance of this aspect is captured in this article and in John Acton’s aphorism: “The issue which has swept down the centuries, and which will have to be fought sooner or later, is the people versus the banks.” 3. Sunshine Bribery: Eric Margolis’ witticism captures the sleaze of global politics: “It’s often cheaper to buy a legislator than a second-hand car.” 4. Information: From the movie, music, book, and school “industries,” to radio, TV, and newspapers, to online and offline encyclopedias, to bought experts and fake dissidents, to online search engines and social media—the Invisible Government controls most of our sources of information. As a result, all of us are, in varying degrees, denizens of Huxley’s Brave New World. 5. Human Nature. The Invisible Government capitalizes on a vast array of human failings to sustain and augment its riches and power. Here are just two examples of such failings. To begin with, we are all manifestly susceptible to indoctrination. This weakness is in turn exacerbated by the tendency to cling to “our” convictions in the face of overwhelming evidence against them. Carl Sagan once said: One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back. 6. Controlled, Manipulated, Trivialized, and Rigged Elections. “If voting made any difference,” Mark Twain observed, “they wouldn’t let us do it.” 7. Broken Electoral Promises. In the absence of real democracy, there is a vast gap between what politicians and parties pledge before elections and what they deliver after elections. Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, and Donald Trump, for instance, promised peace but, once elected, served the Invisible Government. Through guile, false-flag operations, and propaganda, they dragged (or, in Trump’s case, beginning to drag) their country to catastrophic wars. 8. Leading, Infiltrating, and Co-Opting the Opposition. This strategy incorporates Lenin’s alleged dictum that “the best way to control the opposition is to lead it.” Indeed, case-by-case studies show that most so-called reform organizations, alternative media outlets, and leading dissidents, serve the interests of the Invisible Government. Here is Hegel’s compatriot and personal acquaintance, the philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer: Hegel, installed from above, by the powers that be, as the certified Great Philosopher, was a flat-headed, insipid, nauseating, illiterate charlatan, who reached the pinnacle of audacity in scribbling together and dishing up the craziest mystifying nonsense. This nonsense has been noisily proclaimed as immortal wisdom by mercenary followers and readily accepted as such by all fools, who thus joined into as perfect a chorus of admiration as had ever been heard before. The extensive field of spiritual influence with which Hegel was furnished by those in power has enabled him to achieve the intellectual corruption of a whole generation.’ “ Nothing indeed is new under the sun. You only need to replace Hegel with such establishment-promoted “leading dissidents” as Chomsky, Zinn, Goodman, or the Cockburn brothers, to describe contemporary realities. 9. Contrived Terror and false-flag Operations. Thomas Jefferson commented on the adverse effects of wars on liberty and prosperity: “Having seen the people of all other nations bowed down to the earth under the wars and prodigalities of their rulers, I have cherished their opposites, peace, economy, and riddance of public debt, believing that these were the high road to public as well as private prosperity and happiness.” 10. The Conspiracy Theory Bogeyman. Most people had been taught what to think, not how to think. Hence, and thanks to the CIA-ingenious invention of the “conspiracy theory” mumbo jumbo, they cannot readily emerge from the cave of political illiteracy.

sergefaguet 5y ago

Glad that someone is talking about the reality of how things are. The death of the nation state and other hierarchical organizations and of broad-based democracy is written in the mathematical structures of networks. It just makes no sense to treat all nodes in a complex network equally since they are unequal by virtue of network structure itself. And it certainly makes no sense to create large C&C hierarchies when well-positioned nodes and clusters carry far more value and information. And reality does not tolerate inefficient structures in the name of ideology for long in the modern world especially since all ideology is variable and none fundamental. It will of course be covered up by various PR for a long time. But the writing is on the wall.

intended 5y ago

Network effects are at the heart of most of the tech/culture/economy discussions that crop up here. Aside from the very obvious company spin, this is a good stab at the issue. However, any system that rewards only 10% of its participants, is essentially Hollywood. It’s not sustainable, and people will simply check out. The only way to prevent that is to either change the odds, or to sell propaganda. I like the gambler/house analogy. It’s also has intuitive suggestions on how they can be handled. What is to stop governments from just taking over that spot? It’s perfect for what governments are meant to do, or think they are meant to do. “You will have access to training” is a few rungs below the “lift yourself up by your bootstraps”. Especially after acknowledging that only 10% of the population actually perform fast enough for the system to reward you.

secabeen 5y ago
> However, any system that rewards only 10% of its participants, is essentially Hollywood. It’s not sustainable, and people will simply check out. The only way to prevent that is to either change the odds, or to sell propaganda. Hollywood seems to reward a lot more than 10% of its participants. There are many thousands of people living middle-class lives as part of the movie business in Los Angeles and elsewhere. Much of their ability to do so is driven by the unions active in the entertainment industry and the protections they demand for non-superstar workers.
- intended 5y ago
  Sorry, let me rephrase that- I’m describing reward distributions in different industries - for example holly wood actors or major league athletes. For each successful actor/athlete there are millions who never even saw the light of day. I am not talking about the larger business ecosystems, as those would exist for any industry.

gipp 5y ago

Other stuff aside, can we please not go around capitalizing the word "founder"? I've seen it before in a few other blogs that get posted here. Makes it sound like an exalted priesthood, and it's pretty nauseating.

rcMgD2BwE72F 5y ago
Maybe the issue is not how it is written but what it means to those who write the words. I also believe you're right about the cause (founders and technocrats are the new clergy).

disantlor 5y ago

Maybe part of the problem is in the first paragraph. Founders/VC types seem to think that being able to make money off of people's usage of your product is the same as "creating value" for those people. To take an extreme example, if someone says I'll burn down your house if you don't pay me, is value created? Ok and if an advertising based economy/culture creates a phony demand for something, and then people purchase that something, is value created?

quirkot 5y ago

The proposals presented here basically boil down to: You give up your privacy and I promise I won't use my big brother like knowledge of everything about you to force you under my thumb even further. I've seen this movie before and the deal always gets altered further

maerF0x0 5y ago

I cant help but observe that the "Power law" is more or less +1-2 SDs above mean... The network effect is leveraging those in the top (say) 5%ile across all people. Anyone with internet can use the software of the top 5% of programmers. Anyone with youtube can view the top 5% of Skateboarders (or whatever content) Etc. This concentrates all the wealth onto them. If we want to combat this concentrating force we need to also work on dispersion forces. We can ensure that those near the mean participate in the wins. For many this looks like equity. across society we need to be bringing this equity to the public markets sooner. If I were the SEC I'd be working on rules that say companies cannot block sale/liquidity of shares (it is one's property after all). This would help create liquidity for the lower&middle folks who get equity in small businesses and allow large institutions to bring this opportunity to all (via index ETFs). Then instead of holding shares in some small startup you could, for example, sell some and hold an entire pool of startups (VC style) and spread your time investment in a single company across many, without job hopping.

Comevius 5y ago

> And we believe it’s up to tech Founders, VC’s and employees to do something about it. Nobody stops Silicon Valley from saving the world, it's just that it is harder than creating Wi-Fi connected juicers and apps, even if that app is Facebook. I understand the hubris, everyone uses these apps, but getting people hooked on something we are predisposed to want like sugar, social media or loot boxes only qualifies you as a predator.

jonnycomputer 5y ago

When individuals are wealthy enough to pay a state's National Guard to deploy on the border, then they are too wealthy for a healthy democracy. (this is independent of whether you approve of sending them to the border, of what your opinion is on border/immigration issues).

raybon 5y ago

Interesting that NFX posts always get showcased in HN in front page.Plus, any top comments on other posts also link to NFX website. Guess there is a big pro NFX lobby lurking in HN.