5 ms·

Or the internet.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
forgetfreeman 4y ago
Claiming the internet is a net advance for society is a pretty hard sell in the face of the dissolution of critical institutions, proliferation of mental heath issues, and hyper-concentration of wealth it has made possible.
- _aavaa_ 4y ago
  These critical institutions you speak of, they were not here since the beginning of time nor will they be here till the end of time. Blaming “the internet” for their dissolution is implicit assuming that they should have continued in their current form (just to begin listing the claims that are hard to sell). Further, hyper-concentration of wealth is not something “made possible” by the internet. These problems existed before it and will continue existing. Because, if they are any problem at all, they are a social one.
  - forgetfreeman 4y ago
    I'm sorry, I can't hear you over Google's near-monopoly over online search and ads and Amazon's deathgrip on merchandising. Could you speak up a little?
    - _aavaa_ 4y ago
      Sure, let me say that again. Online search, online advertising, and merchandising are not "critical institutions". Nor have you provided any evidence that the companies Google and Amazon displaced deserved their role as incumbents. In fact. 2 of the 3 were literally non-existant before the internet was created, so the internet is obviously not causing their dissolution. Let me spell it out further: no matter how much people moan about it, Google does not have a monopoly on search in the way that the word "monopoly" is being used. There are several alternative (hello Kagi) and people are free and able to switch in less 30 seconds, they just don't want to and just don't care.
  - throw10920 4y ago
    > Further, hyper-concentration of wealth is not something “made possible” by the internet It should be pretty obvious that, even if the internet did not create concentration of wealth, it has certainly enabled it to a far greater extent than was possible before, which was the point. It would be petty semantics to argue over whether this means that it enabled "hyper"-concentration.

Or the internet.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

Claiming the internet is a net advance for society is a pretty hard sell in the face of the dissolution of critical institutions, proliferation of mental heath issues, and hyper-concentration of wealth it has made possible.

_aavaa_ 4y ago
These critical institutions you speak of, they were not here since the beginning of time nor will they be here till the end of time. Blaming “the internet” for their dissolution is implicit assuming that they should have continued in their current form (just to begin listing the claims that are hard to sell). Further, hyper-concentration of wealth is not something “made possible” by the internet. These problems existed before it and will continue existing. Because, if they are any problem at all, they are a social one.
- forgetfreeman 4y ago
  I'm sorry, I can't hear you over Google's near-monopoly over online search and ads and Amazon's deathgrip on merchandising. Could you speak up a little?
  - _aavaa_ 4y ago
    Sure, let me say that again. Online search, online advertising, and merchandising are not "critical institutions". Nor have you provided any evidence that the companies Google and Amazon displaced deserved their role as incumbents. In fact. 2 of the 3 were literally non-existant before the internet was created, so the internet is obviously not causing their dissolution. Let me spell it out further: no matter how much people moan about it, Google does not have a monopoly on search in the way that the word "monopoly" is being used. There are several alternative (hello Kagi) and people are free and able to switch in less 30 seconds, they just don't want to and just don't care.
- throw10920 4y ago
  > Further, hyper-concentration of wealth is not something “made possible” by the internet It should be pretty obvious that, even if the internet did not create concentration of wealth, it has certainly enabled it to a far greater extent than was possible before, which was the point. It would be petty semantics to argue over whether this means that it enabled "hyper"-concentration.