8 ms·

I get buying it for that purpose, but why then kill it? Especially when it is a personal video platform, when Reddit is mostly an anonymous text platform?

klabb3 3y ago
That only makes sense when there’s competition. Why maintain two apps when it’s cheaper to maintain one? Now, in this case it seems like an awful strategic choice, given what happened with TikTok. But I think the reason is nevertheless the same. Modern tech capitalism doesn’t want to compete in the “let the best product win”-space. It’s just not enough money and making stuff is hit or miss. They want to own access and rent-seek. At least that’s my interpretation.
- bboygravity 3y ago
  That's not (modern) capitalism. That's simply -not- capitalism.
  - losteric 3y ago
    Are you saying that rent seeking and anti-competitiveness are "not capitalist"? How do you figure?
  - hkt 3y ago
    Alas, you're incorrect. It is the whole point of capitalism.
    - DiscourseFan 3y ago
      Maybe real life capitalism. Fantasy capitalism, on the other hand...
      - soco 3y ago
        But this is the same discussion as with communism, where the fans will rush you for saying that real-life communism sucks so badly, and tell you they will do it By The Book (or something). It's always surprising how many people take their truths from books instead of what's in front of their noses...
        DiscourseFan 3y ago
        Unfortunately, Real Capitalism has never been tried before... The point is to show the contradictions of market liberalism, how they never fulfill their ideals and by necessity lead to the conditions under which we live. Communism simply says: let's live in a society without money, without a state, without class. Where one fishes in the morning, hunts in the afternoon, and debates in the evening. Where we live, produce, and labor in a social fashion, where people's basic sexual and physical needs are always attended to as the highest priority of the collective. Where each and every person is given the opportunity to pursue the fullest extent of what they can be as a person, to flourish as a human being. Somewhere in here the Soviet Union fits in: for having the highest degree of sexual freedom, for guaranteed housing and jobs, for fair working hours and a living wage, for gender parity in all aspects of life. All at the expense of a vast police and security complex employed to crush potential dissent, and to use those political prisoners as a free pool of labor in order to compete with western late-capitalist states (which they failed to do). The Dengists succeeded by simulating market capitalism to generate the industrial conditions necessary to move towards a more fully socialized state--the Soviet Union, on the other hand, was never willing to subject their backwards populations to industrial capitalism, which led to even greater violence in some respects. People wonder how far it will actually take them, we'll see...but the CCP seems to be uninterested in an internationalist movement. I think that the basic propositions of Communism are mostly appealing, its just that people are not sure how to get there. We've had successes, like the Paris Commune, that were ruthlessly crushed by the state--they don't tend to last very long. Is there a way to achieve revolution without strict military disciplinary measures? After all, the hierarchies of an army nearly reproduce the hierarchies of capitalism with marked precision. Short answer, nobody knows, the French almost had a successful revolution in 1968, that failed, they spent many decades theorizing why, alternatives to an armed movement. Foucault, the great French theorist against disciplinarian social organization, became a neoliberal. Many of those who descend from these french thinkers became Neoliberals, like Jonah Peretti (who founded Buzzfeed) or Nick Land. You could also call them accelerationists, who believe that by accelerating the contradictions of capital one can bring down capitalist society faster, as it will end up crushing itself. Everybody knows the system doesn't work, we're all sick of it, but nobody knows what to do about it. Everything else besides plain and simple labor organizing seems like a lost cause. Anybody who says anything else is usually confused or in someone else's pocket. We had a nearly international, decentralized protest movement only a few years ago that could've toppled multiple governments if the people were angry enough. You don't think the people won't get angry again?
  - tsimionescu 3y ago
    That is exactly how the systems of capitalism play out in real life. As the old adage goes, competition is for losers.
  - TeMPOraL 3y ago
    Of course it is. It's right there in the name. It's not "competitism" or "winwinnism" or "fairism". Capitalism is about accumulating and making money from capital - that is, making money from what you own, not from what you do. It's pretty close to rent seeking - I'd dare say "rent seeking" is what we call it when you do capitalism too hard, and it starts feeling viscerally unfair.
rvba 3y ago
They try to make reddit a picture-first based platform. What alienates the user base. Also why does reddit mobile site lag? Takes 5-10 seconds of the stupid icon before you see the text. Compare it to instant i.reddit or old.reddit. Are they so incompetent that they cannot write a site that doesnt lag? Or they just dont care?
- sethammons 3y ago
  They want to intentionally hamper the website to drive mobile app usage for more juicy data. They don't care about those users who fail to migrate as they are generating less revenue. They begrudgingly keep things working just enough to keep some engagement to drive mobile app use. They don't seem to understand a couple key things, one of which is that if they can't make a website work, I will not install other things they make. They break trust.
spit2wind 3y ago
Robert Reich explains it well using Hacksaw Bob. There are facets he doesn't touch on in that example which he addresses in the full series. Very excellent presentation. Hacksaw Bob: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kZtN3XTk5w0 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kZtN3XTk5w0 Whole series: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLOLArO56vjuqhmPDfbLGaThgpFkrZY0jr https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLOLArO56vjuqhmPDfbLGa...
- zuppy 3y ago
  i think you wanted to post this for "hacksaw bob": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGhJyAYZj9o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGhJyAYZj9o instead of the BMW review :)

klabb3 3y ago

That only makes sense when there’s competition. Why maintain two apps when it’s cheaper to maintain one? Now, in this case it seems like an awful strategic choice, given what happened with TikTok. But I think the reason is nevertheless the same. Modern tech capitalism doesn’t want to compete in the “let the best product win”-space. It’s just not enough money and making stuff is hit or miss. They want to own access and rent-seek. At least that’s my interpretation.

bboygravity 3y ago
That's not (modern) capitalism. That's simply -not- capitalism.
- losteric 3y ago
  Are you saying that rent seeking and anti-competitiveness are "not capitalist"? How do you figure?
- hkt 3y ago
  Alas, you're incorrect. It is the whole point of capitalism.
  - DiscourseFan 3y ago
    Maybe real life capitalism. Fantasy capitalism, on the other hand...
    - soco 3y ago
      But this is the same discussion as with communism, where the fans will rush you for saying that real-life communism sucks so badly, and tell you they will do it By The Book (or something). It's always surprising how many people take their truths from books instead of what's in front of their noses...
      - DiscourseFan 3y ago
        Unfortunately, Real Capitalism has never been tried before... The point is to show the contradictions of market liberalism, how they never fulfill their ideals and by necessity lead to the conditions under which we live. Communism simply says: let's live in a society without money, without a state, without class. Where one fishes in the morning, hunts in the afternoon, and debates in the evening. Where we live, produce, and labor in a social fashion, where people's basic sexual and physical needs are always attended to as the highest priority of the collective. Where each and every person is given the opportunity to pursue the fullest extent of what they can be as a person, to flourish as a human being. Somewhere in here the Soviet Union fits in: for having the highest degree of sexual freedom, for guaranteed housing and jobs, for fair working hours and a living wage, for gender parity in all aspects of life. All at the expense of a vast police and security complex employed to crush potential dissent, and to use those political prisoners as a free pool of labor in order to compete with western late-capitalist states (which they failed to do). The Dengists succeeded by simulating market capitalism to generate the industrial conditions necessary to move towards a more fully socialized state--the Soviet Union, on the other hand, was never willing to subject their backwards populations to industrial capitalism, which led to even greater violence in some respects. People wonder how far it will actually take them, we'll see...but the CCP seems to be uninterested in an internationalist movement. I think that the basic propositions of Communism are mostly appealing, its just that people are not sure how to get there. We've had successes, like the Paris Commune, that were ruthlessly crushed by the state--they don't tend to last very long. Is there a way to achieve revolution without strict military disciplinary measures? After all, the hierarchies of an army nearly reproduce the hierarchies of capitalism with marked precision. Short answer, nobody knows, the French almost had a successful revolution in 1968, that failed, they spent many decades theorizing why, alternatives to an armed movement. Foucault, the great French theorist against disciplinarian social organization, became a neoliberal. Many of those who descend from these french thinkers became Neoliberals, like Jonah Peretti (who founded Buzzfeed) or Nick Land. You could also call them accelerationists, who believe that by accelerating the contradictions of capital one can bring down capitalist society faster, as it will end up crushing itself. Everybody knows the system doesn't work, we're all sick of it, but nobody knows what to do about it. Everything else besides plain and simple labor organizing seems like a lost cause. Anybody who says anything else is usually confused or in someone else's pocket. We had a nearly international, decentralized protest movement only a few years ago that could've toppled multiple governments if the people were angry enough. You don't think the people won't get angry again?
- tsimionescu 3y ago
  That is exactly how the systems of capitalism play out in real life. As the old adage goes, competition is for losers.
- TeMPOraL 3y ago
  Of course it is. It's right there in the name. It's not "competitism" or "winwinnism" or "fairism". Capitalism is about accumulating and making money from capital - that is, making money from what you own, not from what you do. It's pretty close to rent seeking - I'd dare say "rent seeking" is what we call it when you do capitalism too hard, and it starts feeling viscerally unfair.

rvba 3y ago

They try to make reddit a picture-first based platform. What alienates the user base. Also why does reddit mobile site lag? Takes 5-10 seconds of the stupid icon before you see the text. Compare it to instant i.reddit or old.reddit. Are they so incompetent that they cannot write a site that doesnt lag? Or they just dont care?

sethammons 3y ago
They want to intentionally hamper the website to drive mobile app usage for more juicy data. They don't care about those users who fail to migrate as they are generating less revenue. They begrudgingly keep things working just enough to keep some engagement to drive mobile app use. They don't seem to understand a couple key things, one of which is that if they can't make a website work, I will not install other things they make. They break trust.

spit2wind 3y ago

Robert Reich explains it well using Hacksaw Bob. There are facets he doesn't touch on in that example which he addresses in the full series. Very excellent presentation. Hacksaw Bob: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kZtN3XTk5w0 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kZtN3XTk5w0 Whole series: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLOLArO56vjuqhmPDfbLGaThgpFkrZY0jr https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLOLArO56vjuqhmPDfbLGa...

zuppy 3y ago
i think you wanted to post this for "hacksaw bob": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGhJyAYZj9o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGhJyAYZj9o instead of the BMW review :)