3 ms·

Maybe it's just the inevitable Nash Equilibrium of every privately-owned social network, once growth starts slowing down? I mean, early on, while the focus is

by cs702 3y ago

Maybe it's just the inevitable Nash Equilibrium of every privately-owned social network, once growth starts slowing down? I mean, early on, while the focus is on acquiring new customers, the overriding goal is to delight them. Everyone is excited and happy. Later on, as the focus shifts to monetization, the overriding goal is to extract as much value as possible without angering customers into leaving. By the end, everyone is feeling like a cog in an impersonal machine.

Sohcahtoa82 3y ago
"Maybe"? I think it's pretty clear that's exactly it. Capitalism demands constant growth. Any company will reach a point where they've achieved maximum market saturation, where anybody who would ever use your product is now using it. But profits must continue to go up! So you have to find ways to monetize. You either start inserting ads (and redesign the site to make sure you see the ads!), or start charging money. Often the second option involves making the default experience shitty while making the paid option equivalent to the previous standard. Whatever the method, it doesn't matter. The line must go up, even as daily active users remains sideways or even down!
- Ekaros 3y ago
  And realist in me says that after they start charging money they will add ads too.. As that will make more revenue...
- dpc_01234 3y ago
  It's not really about capitalism. In capitalism capital is producing value and owners get rewarded. How is destroying a platform making tons of money capitalism? The whole thing is caused by "shortermism" & "managerialism". The group dynamics are such that the company is not really owned by anyone in particular that would be attached and interested in its long term profitability, only by very distributed shareholders or entities interested only in very short term profitability, hoping to flip it in a matter of weeks. The power over company is in the hands of managers which also all are interested only in the most short term goals like their bonus or getting promoted.
  - Sohcahtoa82 3y ago
    > In capitalism capital is producing value and owners get rewarded. Define "value". Capitalist apologists will swear up and down that it's about creating value for customers. That is, creating something that people will want to buy/use. I think that's incredibly naive and idealistic. The goal is simply to get rich (and for some, being in the top 10 riches in the world isn't enough). Producing something consumers will buy/use is nothing more than a means that must be optimized for maximum profit. Corporations will reduce value to customers when it results in greater profits. > How is destroying a platform making tons of money capitalism? Because it creates more profits, and that's all capitalism is. Maximizing profits. That's really it. It really is that simple. Call me cynical if you'd like. > The whole thing is caused by "shortermism" & "managerialism". IMO, those are by-products of capitalism. Create short-term profits at the cost of long-term profits and bail out after you've made your money and let someone else hold the bag. If anybody cared about long-term profits, then earnings reports would be every 3 years rather than every 3 months.
    - dpc_01234 3y ago
      Eh, such a teenage level criticism of capitalism. You write like e.g. SQL or nosql hater, lacking the deeper understanding, and trying to write off the whole thing upfront and narrow your definition of big thing to a particular implementation you had dealt with. Capitalism is very much like a programming tool/technology/pattern one can employ. It has pros and cons, isn't perfect, but can be "implemented" well or poorly. We probably both agree that the implementation around us sucks big time. But it doesn't have to be that bad, and also needs to be compared with actual real alternatives.
      - Sohcahtoa82 3y ago
        > and trying to write off the whole thing upfront Looking back, it does sound like that, doesn't it? But I'm not strictly anti-capitalist. I think capitalism is a necessity to reward innovation. > We probably both agree that the implementation around us sucks big time. But it doesn't have to be that bad, and also needs to be compared with actual real alternatives. I'm not sure there's anything that can be done to prevent the shortermism, but I don't even think that's capitalism's greatest problem, which I think is growing wealth inequality. The poor get poorer while the rich get richer, while so many poor vote against their own interests because they think they're just a temporarily embarrassed millionaire. I'm not even sure subsidies are the answer. If you give everybody $1,000/month to help them pay the rent, the landlords will just raise rents by $1,000. But if government owns the housing, then it'll be underfunded, not to save money, but as a tactic to show the project is failing and as a reason to get rid of it and reduce government spending. But before that even happens, the construction of the project will be given to whichever contractor promises the greatest kickback to the campaigns of the politicians making the choice. Maybe I'm just horrendously jaded.

by cs702 3y ago

Sohcahtoa82 3y ago

"Maybe"? I think it's pretty clear that's exactly it. Capitalism demands constant growth. Any company will reach a point where they've achieved maximum market saturation, where anybody who would ever use your product is now using it. But profits must continue to go up! So you have to find ways to monetize. You either start inserting ads (and redesign the site to make sure you see the ads!), or start charging money. Often the second option involves making the default experience shitty while making the paid option equivalent to the previous standard. Whatever the method, it doesn't matter. The line must go up, even as daily active users remains sideways or even down!

Ekaros 3y ago
And realist in me says that after they start charging money they will add ads too.. As that will make more revenue...
dpc_01234 3y ago
It's not really about capitalism. In capitalism capital is producing value and owners get rewarded. How is destroying a platform making tons of money capitalism? The whole thing is caused by "shortermism" & "managerialism". The group dynamics are such that the company is not really owned by anyone in particular that would be attached and interested in its long term profitability, only by very distributed shareholders or entities interested only in very short term profitability, hoping to flip it in a matter of weeks. The power over company is in the hands of managers which also all are interested only in the most short term goals like their bonus or getting promoted.
- Sohcahtoa82 3y ago
  > In capitalism capital is producing value and owners get rewarded. Define "value". Capitalist apologists will swear up and down that it's about creating value for customers. That is, creating something that people will want to buy/use. I think that's incredibly naive and idealistic. The goal is simply to get rich (and for some, being in the top 10 riches in the world isn't enough). Producing something consumers will buy/use is nothing more than a means that must be optimized for maximum profit. Corporations will reduce value to customers when it results in greater profits. > How is destroying a platform making tons of money capitalism? Because it creates more profits, and that's all capitalism is. Maximizing profits. That's really it. It really is that simple. Call me cynical if you'd like. > The whole thing is caused by "shortermism" & "managerialism". IMO, those are by-products of capitalism. Create short-term profits at the cost of long-term profits and bail out after you've made your money and let someone else hold the bag. If anybody cared about long-term profits, then earnings reports would be every 3 years rather than every 3 months.
  - dpc_01234 3y ago
    Eh, such a teenage level criticism of capitalism. You write like e.g. SQL or nosql hater, lacking the deeper understanding, and trying to write off the whole thing upfront and narrow your definition of big thing to a particular implementation you had dealt with. Capitalism is very much like a programming tool/technology/pattern one can employ. It has pros and cons, isn't perfect, but can be "implemented" well or poorly. We probably both agree that the implementation around us sucks big time. But it doesn't have to be that bad, and also needs to be compared with actual real alternatives.
    - Sohcahtoa82 3y ago
      > and trying to write off the whole thing upfront Looking back, it does sound like that, doesn't it? But I'm not strictly anti-capitalist. I think capitalism is a necessity to reward innovation. > We probably both agree that the implementation around us sucks big time. But it doesn't have to be that bad, and also needs to be compared with actual real alternatives. I'm not sure there's anything that can be done to prevent the shortermism, but I don't even think that's capitalism's greatest problem, which I think is growing wealth inequality. The poor get poorer while the rich get richer, while so many poor vote against their own interests because they think they're just a temporarily embarrassed millionaire. I'm not even sure subsidies are the answer. If you give everybody $1,000/month to help them pay the rent, the landlords will just raise rents by $1,000. But if government owns the housing, then it'll be underfunded, not to save money, but as a tactic to show the project is failing and as a reason to get rid of it and reduce government spending. But before that even happens, the construction of the project will be given to whichever contractor promises the greatest kickback to the campaigns of the politicians making the choice. Maybe I'm just horrendously jaded.