3 ms·
Not saying we should make it illegal to give things away for others to build with. Open source code itself is not a product accessible by an end user, much less
by strogonoff 5y ago
Not saying we should make it illegal to give things away for others to build with. Open source code itself is not a product accessible by an end user, much less a service that connects many users and acts as a middleman in a two-sided market on which side of which are advertisers. I should clarify that I mean specifically the normalization of “free” in current context of big social.
I see we’re attacking it from different angles. I believe forcing big social to become paid by requiring it to open up is a better way, achievable with more narrowly focused, less far-reaching regulation.
- scotty79 5y agoI see making some service paid as more of a bandaid, and we'll get surprised by the next nasty thing fueled by advertisements that have all the incentive to enrage us and turn our brains into jello to opimize selling things. Making Facebook paid doesn't help all that much because paid stuff also can have advertisements in them and they do. Also if somebody is selling something, they still want to play the same chords to keep us engaged and paying. Paying for something doesn't automatically make the seller work in your interest.
- strogonoff 5y agoThere is a psychological aspect to this, I believe. Switching between cheap and expensive is less of an effort than switching between free and cheap. Similarly, competition-wise, competing with however low number is easier than competing with zero. I really think FB’s domination hinges on “free”. However, changing business model like that cannot be directly required. What can be required is openness.