4 ms·

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

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.
- GabeIsko 3y ago
  But if this deal follows a Capitalist system, if we have greater supply of "valuable" content, than the price should go down and we should view less ads over time. Instead the opposite is happening. That's kind of the greater goal of the book - contextualizing our interactions with cloud companies within a larger macroeconomic picture. It is a compelling enough topic to consider. I don't really think it is fair to call it fan-fiction. It could be right or wrong, but it is a book about a macroeconomic theory that seeks to explain observable behaviors.
  - yamazakiwi 3y ago
    >But if this deal follows a Capitalist system, if we have greater supply of "valuable" content, than the price should go down and we should view less ads over time. The prices are not going due to an economic change of form. It's happening because capitalism facilitates it. I think the writer is using an old view of capitalism and ascribing developments in modern capitalism to something brand new. We can't stop the markets and tell them they're not being good old boy pure capitalists when they are doing exactly what capitalism promotes, albeit secretly. If a system develops differently than anticipated due to how it's used, it doesn't make it not the original design. You can repurpose the design, and make people view it differently, but the design remains static and people will react to the system appropriately based on the conditions allowed and not the conditions predicted or requested. The need for a new definition arises solely from the person attempting to persuade you to accept it, better so if it confirms bias, uses half-truths to explain, and catchy language like Technofeudalism. I guess it has provoked my thought, maybe I will read it.

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.

GabeIsko 3y ago
But if this deal follows a Capitalist system, if we have greater supply of "valuable" content, than the price should go down and we should view less ads over time. Instead the opposite is happening. That's kind of the greater goal of the book - contextualizing our interactions with cloud companies within a larger macroeconomic picture. It is a compelling enough topic to consider. I don't really think it is fair to call it fan-fiction. It could be right or wrong, but it is a book about a macroeconomic theory that seeks to explain observable behaviors.
- yamazakiwi 3y ago
  >But if this deal follows a Capitalist system, if we have greater supply of "valuable" content, than the price should go down and we should view less ads over time. The prices are not going due to an economic change of form. It's happening because capitalism facilitates it. I think the writer is using an old view of capitalism and ascribing developments in modern capitalism to something brand new. We can't stop the markets and tell them they're not being good old boy pure capitalists when they are doing exactly what capitalism promotes, albeit secretly. If a system develops differently than anticipated due to how it's used, it doesn't make it not the original design. You can repurpose the design, and make people view it differently, but the design remains static and people will react to the system appropriately based on the conditions allowed and not the conditions predicted or requested. The need for a new definition arises solely from the person attempting to persuade you to accept it, better so if it confirms bias, uses half-truths to explain, and catchy language like Technofeudalism. I guess it has provoked my thought, maybe I will read it.