4 ms·

"I won't take his ideas seriously because of superficial reasons, and I don't have any actual arguments against his thesis, so I must throw mud and hope somethi

by davisr 3y ago

"I won't take his ideas seriously because of superficial reasons, and I don't have any actual arguments against his thesis, so I must throw mud and hope something sticks."

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
yamazakiwi 3y ago
Because this thesis is stupid This framing is silly. He says we're Cloud Serfs because we do unpaid work whenever we use our phones... You're not a Serf for using social media or watching videos online, regardless of how much value is extracted by these companies. You contributed nothing to the dialogue surrounding the topic that you are supposedly defending from mud throwing.
- n_ary 3y ago
  Which is true... Think of it this way, your phone does social media, which doesn't work unless ypu engage. When you engage there, mote people adapts it due to community, more eyeballs for sweet ad money. These medias also grow large and relies on other services to scale and perform those ad workload so they also build or pay someone else for the resources. In the end what you get is a good feelong in the heart that people liked that one post/photo while they got sweet ad money and someone actually bought a product and someone else made more money. However that engagement has a cost, you are the acrobat in their circus stage, but you get no pay and while at it you also paid for that over complex device that they also sold(charged you money to give your performance). Of course, you can nitpick all you want from my bad example, and do a lot of what-aboutism, but the point is clear I hope.
  - yamazakiwi 3y ago
    I agree with everthing you said, but again, contextually users aren't doing any "work". That is the distinction I'm trying to draw. You are less like a serf and more like a thief victim, making the writers comparisons quite stretched by definition. We could be discussing these problems straight-forward as you have described them instead of trying to make it sound like skynet has turned us into actual slaves and selling people on 24 news-cycle style dystopia bait.
    - beepbooptheory 3y ago
      Many/most economists and historians find it beneficial to understand things not by rigid or otherwise static categories and concepts, but through relations. Feudalism, insofar as it can be defined (and this is hard[1]), is probably best captured as a certain kind of relation between serfs and landlords (or whatever). Focusing on the relations between things is fruitful for analysis and research as well as being resistant to changes or transpositions in the terms in question. It would be much harder to say that there is this one selfsame phenomena called "work" and we have done it throughout all of history. Or that we are definitely not "working" as we generate another's capital by getting brainwashed and depressed by social media. Or that the peasants living off their lord "went to work" everyday. 1. https://www.thoughtco.com/the-f-word-feudalism-1788836 https://www.thoughtco.com/the-f-word-feudalism-1788836
      - yamazakiwi 3y ago
        You are right, it is easier to write utilizing few relations instead of trying to manipulate static categories and concepts that don't bend to your will. To me this is a signal of quality but I could see benefits to writing this way, such as, if your goal was to get more people talking about the issue proposed. There are also potential downsides to writing this way, especially if you actually care about solving these problems and are at the mercy of governmental and capatilistic systems vs selling a book (Not saying that's what this economist is doing). I agree that the definition of "work" has changed over time and I'm not trying to be pedantic so let's get to the point, does it matter if it's considered work or not? The real issue most people would agree with is the bad guys are extracting tons of value through the actions of their users. Should those users be paid? The answer is: it depends. In our current system we would create an organization that can generate money by holding the tech companies responsible to pay users when it is deemed to do so. Unfortunately I don't see the money amounting to very much unless laws change drastically since even class-action lawsuits for leaked data provide very little. I'm guessing that measuring "phone work" would amount to micro-cents regardless of value directly generated.
- mempko 3y ago
  Explain how we are not cloud serfs?
  - yamazakiwi 3y ago
    Serfs work, it is not work to read blogs or watch videos.
    - devteambravo 3y ago
      My bank account balance begs to differ..
      - yamazakiwi 3y ago
        Your bank account begs to differ that reading blogs and watching videos isn't work? In what way might I ask?
    - GabeIsko 3y ago
      But it is if you are viewing advertisements. That is the argument that Yanis makes in the book anyway, heavily simplified and removed of a lot of context. The point is that you can't choose what you read or watch. We still can somewhat - we can install adblock and decide what media to consume. But instead of a "capitalist" effort to simply try to to invest in better "content", you could make the case that cloud companies are simply holding content hostage and demanding more of your attention, money, and time. Even at the expense of civil rights like privacy. It is stuff that gets talked about every day on Hackernews. It isn't that far fetched that antagonistic serfdom is basically the type of relationship large tech conglomerates treat their users. Dark UI patterns. EULAs. I would agree that it doesn't make sense on it's face, but only in the context of a comprehensive macroeconomic analysis. That's what the good deal of the book is about.
      - yamazakiwi 3y ago
        Most times you are getting something else of value in return when viewing advertisements. free services, etc What we're doing is more capitalistic so I'm uninterested in drawing parallels with feudalism personally, I guess fan-fiction economics are not for me.

by davisr 3y ago

"I won't take his ideas seriously because of superficial reasons, and I don't have any actual arguments against his thesis, so I must throw mud and hope something sticks."

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

yamazakiwi 3y ago

Because this thesis is stupid This framing is silly. He says we're Cloud Serfs because we do unpaid work whenever we use our phones... You're not a Serf for using social media or watching videos online, regardless of how much value is extracted by these companies. You contributed nothing to the dialogue surrounding the topic that you are supposedly defending from mud throwing.

n_ary 3y ago
Which is true... Think of it this way, your phone does social media, which doesn't work unless ypu engage. When you engage there, mote people adapts it due to community, more eyeballs for sweet ad money. These medias also grow large and relies on other services to scale and perform those ad workload so they also build or pay someone else for the resources. In the end what you get is a good feelong in the heart that people liked that one post/photo while they got sweet ad money and someone actually bought a product and someone else made more money. However that engagement has a cost, you are the acrobat in their circus stage, but you get no pay and while at it you also paid for that over complex device that they also sold(charged you money to give your performance). Of course, you can nitpick all you want from my bad example, and do a lot of what-aboutism, but the point is clear I hope.
- yamazakiwi 3y ago
  I agree with everthing you said, but again, contextually users aren't doing any "work". That is the distinction I'm trying to draw. You are less like a serf and more like a thief victim, making the writers comparisons quite stretched by definition. We could be discussing these problems straight-forward as you have described them instead of trying to make it sound like skynet has turned us into actual slaves and selling people on 24 news-cycle style dystopia bait.
  - beepbooptheory 3y ago
    Many/most economists and historians find it beneficial to understand things not by rigid or otherwise static categories and concepts, but through relations. Feudalism, insofar as it can be defined (and this is hard[1]), is probably best captured as a certain kind of relation between serfs and landlords (or whatever). Focusing on the relations between things is fruitful for analysis and research as well as being resistant to changes or transpositions in the terms in question. It would be much harder to say that there is this one selfsame phenomena called "work" and we have done it throughout all of history. Or that we are definitely not "working" as we generate another's capital by getting brainwashed and depressed by social media. Or that the peasants living off their lord "went to work" everyday. 1. https://www.thoughtco.com/the-f-word-feudalism-1788836 https://www.thoughtco.com/the-f-word-feudalism-1788836
    - yamazakiwi 3y ago
      You are right, it is easier to write utilizing few relations instead of trying to manipulate static categories and concepts that don't bend to your will. To me this is a signal of quality but I could see benefits to writing this way, such as, if your goal was to get more people talking about the issue proposed. There are also potential downsides to writing this way, especially if you actually care about solving these problems and are at the mercy of governmental and capatilistic systems vs selling a book (Not saying that's what this economist is doing). I agree that the definition of "work" has changed over time and I'm not trying to be pedantic so let's get to the point, does it matter if it's considered work or not? The real issue most people would agree with is the bad guys are extracting tons of value through the actions of their users. Should those users be paid? The answer is: it depends. In our current system we would create an organization that can generate money by holding the tech companies responsible to pay users when it is deemed to do so. Unfortunately I don't see the money amounting to very much unless laws change drastically since even class-action lawsuits for leaked data provide very little. I'm guessing that measuring "phone work" would amount to micro-cents regardless of value directly generated.
mempko 3y ago
Explain how we are not cloud serfs?
- yamazakiwi 3y ago
  Serfs work, it is not work to read blogs or watch videos.
  - devteambravo 3y ago
    My bank account balance begs to differ..
    - yamazakiwi 3y ago
      Your bank account begs to differ that reading blogs and watching videos isn't work? In what way might I ask?
  - GabeIsko 3y ago
    But it is if you are viewing advertisements. That is the argument that Yanis makes in the book anyway, heavily simplified and removed of a lot of context. The point is that you can't choose what you read or watch. We still can somewhat - we can install adblock and decide what media to consume. But instead of a "capitalist" effort to simply try to to invest in better "content", you could make the case that cloud companies are simply holding content hostage and demanding more of your attention, money, and time. Even at the expense of civil rights like privacy. It is stuff that gets talked about every day on Hackernews. It isn't that far fetched that antagonistic serfdom is basically the type of relationship large tech conglomerates treat their users. Dark UI patterns. EULAs. I would agree that it doesn't make sense on it's face, but only in the context of a comprehensive macroeconomic analysis. That's what the good deal of the book is about.
    - yamazakiwi 3y ago
      Most times you are getting something else of value in return when viewing advertisements. free services, etc What we're doing is more capitalistic so I'm uninterested in drawing parallels with feudalism personally, I guess fan-fiction economics are not for me.