5 ms·

TL:DR: Paul mourns " a not-too-distant past where technology entrepreneurs created things to make the world a better or more interesting place, not just becau

by TY 15y ago

TL:DR: Paul mourns " a not-too-distant past where technology entrepreneurs created things to make the world a better or more interesting place, not just because they wanted to make a billion dollars." And this is in the past because: "To make money — real money — at this game you have to attract millions, or tens of millions, of users. And when you’re dealing with those kinds of numbers, it’s literally impossible not to treat your users as pieces of data. It’s ironic, but depressingly unsurprising, that web 2.0 is using faux socialization and democratization to create a world where everyone is reduced to a number on a spreadsheet." And finally: "In the final analysis, a billion dollars isn’t actually all that cool. What’s cool is keeping your soul, whatever the financial cost." Sometimes Paul has an interesting insight, but it's buried so deep in multiple layers of ranting that it's impossible to get there without a significant amount of willpower and spare time. Please feel free to insert the "short letter" quote here... EDIT: and please do feel free to add a comment why you are downvoting my comment.

cageface 15y ago
The term "rant" is so wildly overused lately that it's lost virtually all meaning. Whether you agree with it or not, this is an argument, not a rant.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- Groxx 15y ago
  What's the argument they're making? And even if there is one, it's lost in the "the past rules, the present sucks, and the future will suck more" that permeates every sentence. Heck, arguably, every rant has an argument - having one doesn't make it not-a-rant. edit: I'm actually curious what you think it is, I don't see one aside from "don't lose your soul" - but that's not an argument. That's advice. Who, or what, are they arguing against, and what is their counter-argument?
  - cageface 15y ago
    Really? Is this so hard? The argument in a nutshell: technology is wonderful but the initial promise of "web 2.0" has encouraged corporate greed and unethical behavior instead of empowering users as many of us had hoped. Specific recent cases of this phenomenon were cited in support of the argument. Help yourself to some rants here: http://www.subgenius.com/bigfist/classic/classicrants/classicrants.html http://www.subgenius.com/bigfist/classic/classicrants/classi...
    - Groxx 15y ago
      So they're arguing against a straw-man? They're extremely naive if actually believe that money wasn't a goal for others while they had un-sustainably idealized hopes. And they're forgetting the history of all technology. Bow and arrows - great for hunting! Great for war! Atomic energy - great for power! Great for powerful explosions! Electric lights - great for reading at night! Great for keeping people working through the night! Factories - great for improving everyone's quality of life! Great for reducing large portions of the population to near slavery to their jobs! It's "guns don't kill people, people kill people" all over again. You're a fool if you think something won't be corrupted by some, and equally foolish if you think everyone is corrupted. And if Wikipedia, Khan Academy, and 4chan aren't "web-2.0 social-empowerment", I'm not sure what is.
      - cageface 15y ago
        Congratulations! You've now presented a counter-argument.
        Groxx 15y ago
        Sweet! That was easy. Look out, Internet, here I come! I'm sure some of you out there are wrong IMO, and you must be told! Maybe I'm just more irked than I should be at people who have rose-tinted glasses on (and they certainly do. to what degree is debatable, I'll leave it at that here). But I've encountered a number of people who seem not to, and they typically have incredible drive to mold the world into what they want, and rejoice in the changes they've lived through. They're almost universally fascinating, happy, energetic people. But maybe their glasses are in fact too blue(?)-tinted. Still, I'd choose that over growing bitter and immobile.
wallflower 15y ago
> What’s cool is keeping your soul, whatever the financial cost. I knew a kid when he was knee-high who grew up to graduate at the top of his high school class. In his valedictory speech, full of chestnuts that were a bit too optimistic and ungrounded, he said the following: "Work doesn't necessarily make you happy but it may give you the means to do the stuff that makes you happy." I've always been struck by the simple wisdom of his statement. I think we can't always get everything from one area of life (job/career/startup). And that's fine. Life is a balancing act, which implies it is dynamic. Sometimes we sway too far and fall and our friends catch us. And we get back on.

by TY 15y ago

cageface 15y ago

The term "rant" is so wildly overused lately that it's lost virtually all meaning. Whether you agree with it or not, this is an argument, not a rant.

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
Groxx 15y ago
What's the argument they're making? And even if there is one, it's lost in the "the past rules, the present sucks, and the future will suck more" that permeates every sentence. Heck, arguably, every rant has an argument - having one doesn't make it not-a-rant. edit: I'm actually curious what you think it is, I don't see one aside from "don't lose your soul" - but that's not an argument. That's advice. Who, or what, are they arguing against, and what is their counter-argument?
- cageface 15y ago
  Really? Is this so hard? The argument in a nutshell: technology is wonderful but the initial promise of "web 2.0" has encouraged corporate greed and unethical behavior instead of empowering users as many of us had hoped. Specific recent cases of this phenomenon were cited in support of the argument. Help yourself to some rants here: http://www.subgenius.com/bigfist/classic/classicrants/classicrants.html http://www.subgenius.com/bigfist/classic/classicrants/classi...
  - Groxx 15y ago
    So they're arguing against a straw-man? They're extremely naive if actually believe that money wasn't a goal for others while they had un-sustainably idealized hopes. And they're forgetting the history of all technology. Bow and arrows - great for hunting! Great for war! Atomic energy - great for power! Great for powerful explosions! Electric lights - great for reading at night! Great for keeping people working through the night! Factories - great for improving everyone's quality of life! Great for reducing large portions of the population to near slavery to their jobs! It's "guns don't kill people, people kill people" all over again. You're a fool if you think something won't be corrupted by some, and equally foolish if you think everyone is corrupted. And if Wikipedia, Khan Academy, and 4chan aren't "web-2.0 social-empowerment", I'm not sure what is.
    - cageface 15y ago
      Congratulations! You've now presented a counter-argument.
      - Groxx 15y ago
        Sweet! That was easy. Look out, Internet, here I come! I'm sure some of you out there are wrong IMO, and you must be told! Maybe I'm just more irked than I should be at people who have rose-tinted glasses on (and they certainly do. to what degree is debatable, I'll leave it at that here). But I've encountered a number of people who seem not to, and they typically have incredible drive to mold the world into what they want, and rejoice in the changes they've lived through. They're almost universally fascinating, happy, energetic people. But maybe their glasses are in fact too blue(?)-tinted. Still, I'd choose that over growing bitter and immobile.

wallflower 15y ago

> What’s cool is keeping your soul, whatever the financial cost. I knew a kid when he was knee-high who grew up to graduate at the top of his high school class. In his valedictory speech, full of chestnuts that were a bit too optimistic and ungrounded, he said the following: "Work doesn't necessarily make you happy but it may give you the means to do the stuff that makes you happy." I've always been struck by the simple wisdom of his statement. I think we can't always get everything from one area of life (job/career/startup). And that's fine. Life is a balancing act, which implies it is dynamic. Sometimes we sway too far and fall and our friends catch us. And we get back on.