4 ms·

This assumes that people feel "worked against" by the current systems. Facebook achieved market dominance in an open market, it's hard to convincingly argue th

This assumes that people feel "worked against" by the current systems. Facebook achieved market dominance in an open market, it's hard to convincingly argue that they won by doing things against the desires of the market. So the market would work for a problem like "Facebook is too expensive and doesn't need to be." But Facebook is already free, so you can't easily beat it on that point (it's unlikely that your thing would be so profitable you could meaningfully pay users to take them away from FB). But we don't have to simply blindly accept that the result of market competition == the outcome that we'd all choose if we thought about the big picture and not just the in-the-moment choices. How does market competition divorce the network from the algorithm? Keep in mind that Facebook actively tunes their algorithm to give people more and more (short term) emotional reward for engagement. A third party would have to convince people that they actually want stuff different than what they've currently been responding to, and that they should leave FB to get it (versus just behaving differently on FB to get a different version of the product). There's already a lot of alternatives for news - I personally decided FB wasn't right for me (nor was any "social media" network) and got a newspaper subscription instead - but they're hardly seeing mass adoption from people migrating away from Facebook.

specialist 5y ago
Where does ethics fit into your thesis?
- majormajor 5y ago
  The natural extension of "we don't have to simply blindly accept that the result of market competition == the outcome that we'd all choose if we thought about the big picture and not just the in-the-moment choices" is that we would definitely not assume "the result of market competition == anything ethical." Changing outcomes/behaviors to ensure people act ethically would have to come from an outside-the-market force, like government.
zrm 5y ago
> Facebook achieved market dominance in an open market, it's hard to convincingly argue that they won by doing things against the desires of the market. This is the information asymmetry. People sign up without understanding how the algorithm works, or sign up not knowing that the corporation can change the algorithm at any time to make it more abusive. Then the network effect locks them in even if some eventually figure it out. So beating them in the market takes two things. First, yours has to be better. Designing something which is better at the expense of being less (but not un-) profitable is straightforward. Let users choose the algorithm, they'll typically want one that optimizes for quality over volume etc., so you'll make less money but not none. Second, people have to know yours is better. This is the information problem. This is also partially a coordination problem. You need everyone to find out quickly enough that enough can switch together and overcome the network effect before the early people forget about it or try it and give up because no one else is there. That's not a trivial problem but it's hardly a violation of the laws of physics either. And if you can do it one time, the network effect is now in your favor. > How does market competition divorce the network from the algorithm? Because that's how you get people to switch from Facebook. That's the competitive advantage that Facebook doesn't have. Not locking you into a specific algorithm, which informed users would prefer once they learn the consequences of not having that. In theory Facebook could see this coming and do this voluntarily. Then it would lose 90% rather than 100% of its profits because it couldn't optimize for getting people to spend all day on Facebook once users could choose an algorithm that doesn't do that. Or their refusal to do this creates an opportunity for someone else to.
- lupire 5y ago
  The claim that Facebook users don't like using Facebook needs to be proven. People who don't want it have moved on. Facebook is like Congress. People like their part but hate the other parts.
  - zrm 5y ago
    They don't need to not like it. It's relative. They just have to like the new thing better. Which shouldn't be hard when they're objectively maximizing engagement at your expense. The hard part is figuring out how to overcome the network effect.

specialist 5y ago

Where does ethics fit into your thesis?

majormajor 5y ago
The natural extension of "we don't have to simply blindly accept that the result of market competition == the outcome that we'd all choose if we thought about the big picture and not just the in-the-moment choices" is that we would definitely not assume "the result of market competition == anything ethical." Changing outcomes/behaviors to ensure people act ethically would have to come from an outside-the-market force, like government.

zrm 5y ago

> Facebook achieved market dominance in an open market, it's hard to convincingly argue that they won by doing things against the desires of the market. This is the information asymmetry. People sign up without understanding how the algorithm works, or sign up not knowing that the corporation can change the algorithm at any time to make it more abusive. Then the network effect locks them in even if some eventually figure it out. So beating them in the market takes two things. First, yours has to be better. Designing something which is better at the expense of being less (but not un-) profitable is straightforward. Let users choose the algorithm, they'll typically want one that optimizes for quality over volume etc., so you'll make less money but not none. Second, people have to know yours is better. This is the information problem. This is also partially a coordination problem. You need everyone to find out quickly enough that enough can switch together and overcome the network effect before the early people forget about it or try it and give up because no one else is there. That's not a trivial problem but it's hardly a violation of the laws of physics either. And if you can do it one time, the network effect is now in your favor. > How does market competition divorce the network from the algorithm? Because that's how you get people to switch from Facebook. That's the competitive advantage that Facebook doesn't have. Not locking you into a specific algorithm, which informed users would prefer once they learn the consequences of not having that. In theory Facebook could see this coming and do this voluntarily. Then it would lose 90% rather than 100% of its profits because it couldn't optimize for getting people to spend all day on Facebook once users could choose an algorithm that doesn't do that. Or their refusal to do this creates an opportunity for someone else to.

lupire 5y ago
The claim that Facebook users don't like using Facebook needs to be proven. People who don't want it have moved on. Facebook is like Congress. People like their part but hate the other parts.
- zrm 5y ago
  They don't need to not like it. It's relative. They just have to like the new thing better. Which shouldn't be hard when they're objectively maximizing engagement at your expense. The hard part is figuring out how to overcome the network effect.