3 ms·

I did say there were exceptions. How about how traditional media can easily take all the money from your YouTube video if you have a 30s clip of copyrighted mus

I did say there were exceptions. How about how traditional media can easily take all the money from your YouTube video if you have a 30s clip of copyrighted music, or end your YouTube career entirely with spurious copyright claims? How about surveillance technology enabling repressive regimes? Or how AirBNB enabled landlords to effectively charge higher rents by moving to short term rentals, and to run hotels while shirking regulations? Most of the examples you've listed are just changing hats (and others aren't power structures - long distance rates are not a power structure). Amazon wasn't around in the age of malls? Okay, sure, but is "malls/department stores, but really big, and online" really a different arrangement than before, or the same thing with more centralization? I view that as a consolidation of power among broadly the same group of people (American corporations & investors). This is a special case of, "technology solutions don't solve social problems." Technology improves and gets cheaper, no contest. That doesn't mean I can write software that will change my relationship to society anymore than I can write software that makes my computer levitate. If you're interested in proving me wrong, it seems to me that the counterargument wouldn't be an example of technological change, but a theoretical framework that would enable you to analyze a social problem or power structure and come up with a piece of software that would radically alter the outcome, with results better than chance. Obviously it wouldn't be reasonable for me to demand a fully developed theoretical framework from you in a casual conversation, so I'm happy to concede I may be mistaken if presented with a convincing seed or intuition that framework could be crystalized from. Alternatively, I'd absolutely concede I was wrong if presented with a convincing hypothetical piece of software that would radically change the relationship between tenants and landlords. You don't have to do any of that of course, I'm not trying to move goalposts, I'm trying to point out where my argument might be vulnerable in the interest of good faith, and because I'd love to be wrong about this.

wpietri 4y ago
> I did say there were exceptions. That's a very convenient way to make entirely unfalsifiable claims. Any contradictory evidence? Just more entirely unimportant exceptions. > long distance rates are not a power structure Ah, right, except for the fact that they were maintained by a monopoly. And that was broken up mainly due to advances in technology demonstrating that society would function just fine when it wasn't a monopoly, plus a moment history where people believed in regulation as useful. > If you're interested in proving me wrong Not particularly. I'm just interested in you not immediately shitting on the exploration of possibilities by making overblown, unevidenced claims and then voluminously handwaving away evidence to the contrary. Maybe let it breathe a bit.
- maxbond 4y ago
  Your responses aren't a particularly fair reading, so I'm going to decline to address them. I'm sorry you felt I shat on your idea. I was actually very interested in it. My contribution to the conversation was critical, but not intended to be dismissive. I thought it was a great question and a topic I'm interested in & think about often. So I formed a substantive comment expressing my thoughts on it. I'm sorry this was a frustrating experience for you. If there's something I could have done differently (other than just stay silent) to make it more clear that I thought this was a good discussion or to be clearer, please let me know, and I'll consider it going forward.

wpietri 4y ago

> I did say there were exceptions. That's a very convenient way to make entirely unfalsifiable claims. Any contradictory evidence? Just more entirely unimportant exceptions. > long distance rates are not a power structure Ah, right, except for the fact that they were maintained by a monopoly. And that was broken up mainly due to advances in technology demonstrating that society would function just fine when it wasn't a monopoly, plus a moment history where people believed in regulation as useful. > If you're interested in proving me wrong Not particularly. I'm just interested in you not immediately shitting on the exploration of possibilities by making overblown, unevidenced claims and then voluminously handwaving away evidence to the contrary. Maybe let it breathe a bit.

maxbond 4y ago
Your responses aren't a particularly fair reading, so I'm going to decline to address them. I'm sorry you felt I shat on your idea. I was actually very interested in it. My contribution to the conversation was critical, but not intended to be dismissive. I thought it was a great question and a topic I'm interested in & think about often. So I formed a substantive comment expressing my thoughts on it. I'm sorry this was a frustrating experience for you. If there's something I could have done differently (other than just stay silent) to make it more clear that I thought this was a good discussion or to be clearer, please let me know, and I'll consider it going forward.