4 ms·
Brain on Fraud Apologetics
- rektide 4y agoI am still 100% a Cory fanboy, still a gem of a piece as usual. It's not a full on problem for me, but a lot of the article talks about intermediation, but while users intermediating & altering their experiences with ad-blockers & defense is obviously good & ok, fraudsters intermediating sites to create predatory enshittified prpxy sites is obviously bad. I want the argumentation against these folk to have a more clear & separate ground, beyond "just" intermediation. Cory's net point still feels very much intact. The harsh violation of "create more value than you capture" (Tim OReilly) shows a morabund parasitic version of tech that's up to no good, that isnt technology for humans but tech to leech humanity, and it's far to present & far too growing a share of tech. Still, part of me wants to defend intermediation, as resculpting & rebuilding other people's places/sites/apps/services to be better also stems from that freedom. But minus the fraud.
- leephillips 4y agoI don’t think he claims that all forms of intermediation are evil. It depends on their purposes and effects. A search engine is itself a form of intermediation and can be immensely useful. The fake business sites add no value for anyone except the people fraudulently skimming the markups, and their collaborators: Google, Amex, etc.
- rektide 4y agoRight on. This seems fair. I do think it's hard for governments to navigate & pick what are good & bad intermediations. Cory cites how Instagram is absolutely tyrannical & ultra litiguous about anyone intermediating them. These works totally add user value, but that's not how things are regulated, is not is the state sees things.