4 ms·

Same, but really wish he was less of an apologist for corporations; I guess a lot of his readership are corporate people who are interested in justifying the wo

by ajkjk 3y ago

Same, but really wish he was less of an apologist for corporations; I guess a lot of his readership are corporate people who are interested in justifying the world they run, but it constantly rubs the wrong way if you're at all skeptical of, like, giant business or ads or AI... at a social level. Basically I'd love to find a publication that's similar but better reflects my values.

natdempk 3y ago
I get it, but also I think this is one of the things that makes Ben so good at his job and is also a bit more nuanced than might initially appear. He (mostly) isn't interested in being an activist for a certain perspective and really just seems to think about things in terms of systems, incentives, and revealed preferences as they exist today. I think this can butt heads with idealist types who want things to be a different way, but to me it's a big part of what makes his writing and analysis so good.
- SamBam 3y ago
  You may be right, but you may also be exemplifying am unconscious bias that pro-corporate/pro-existing-power-structures = neutral, and anti- those things is "idealist" and so not neutral.
  - natdempk 3y ago
    This is not really how I think about things. I think of idealist = different from current reality based on some principles. Often to me idealist also means that they wish things were different from the way they ended up on ideological grounds, but those grounds are incompatible with the current incentives/systems that led to the current state for some reason. I don't really think the current system is neutral, more that is just is what exists today for some reasons, and that anything else proposed has to actually contend with those reasons/forces/incentives.
grantc 3y ago
You could browse the fiction shelves at a local bookseller; they may have things approximating what you seek.
ddkper 3y ago
>> Basically I'd love to find a publication that's similar better reflects my values. Beware of an active search for an echo chamber. Because for example: >>it constantly runs the wrong way if you're at all skeptical of, like, giant business or ads or AI... at a social level. Is a viewpoint that could very well be wrong when faced with the analysis from a different perspective from yours. Having someone repeat your values to you doesn't make it true or take into account trade-offs that are being made which could prompt you to change your opinion.
- ajkjk 3y ago
  That doesn't make any sense. I'm looking for someone whose fundamental ethics reflects mine so that their analysis of e.g. "should society work this way" has some overlap with what I actually want to see in the world. They are fully capable, as am I, into taking into account tradeoffs and changing our opinions. Stratechery's analysis is, when it broaches on ethics, based on ethics shared by a subset of rich people and (imo) amoral technologists and, I think, pretty much no one else. Like I have an aesthetic interest in disallowing corporations from implementing psychological manipulation to prevent me from e.g. quitting their services. Ben can see no problem with Amazon's arcane process for quitting Prime. So, fine, he's not a person I want speaking for me or, like, affecting any policy on the matter whatsoever.
  - flakiness 3y ago
    As other comments said, Platformer might be one you like. The author also is hosting a podcast (which is free) if you are OK with the audio media: https://www.nytimes.com/column/hard-fork https://www.nytimes.com/column/hard-fork It has a bit more anti-tech vibe as one of the co-hosts comes from NYT. I think it's a good complement to Stratechery.
  - ddkper 3y ago
    But your fundamental ethics are something that can be changed by criticism and exposure to opposing viewpoints. If you have such a static view of your beliefs and opinions I would urge you to reflect on that. >>They are fully capable, as am I, into taking into account tradeoffs and changing our opinions. That may be, but people generally are incentivized to be far more charitable to their position than the opposition. Reading the opposition from the oppositions own formulation will be a far greater defense of what they actually think in terms of tradeoffs. >>Like I have an aesthetic interest in disallowing corporations from implementing psychological manipulation to prevent me from e.g. quitting their services. Ben himself in the article you are referring to says this is shady, but he also points out that its generally not nearly as bad as say the NYT which requires you to call via phone to unsubscribe, and that the conflict with the regulators is comparatively heavy handed and doesn't take into account the tradeoffs he wants to discuss in his article. >>So, fine, he's not a person I want speaking for me or, like, affecting any policy on the matter whatsoever. Ok, not really up to you though. Ideas enter the marketplace and compete with each other. The ones that people find the most persuasive end up affecting the policy. Clearly his view points are not affecting the policy that much seeing as he is directly responding to regulation that is occurring and antithetical to what he believes is correct.
canes123456 3y ago
There is absolutely a tech optimism bias which he is upfront about. I would find it very hard to find any one that deeply understands technology and makes their living writing about technology that does not think technological progress is a net positive. There is another part where he just saying how things are which people don’t like to hear. They don’t like how powerful the big tech companies are but don’t want to grapple with the reasons they are big or delve into the nuances of the impacts of changing the status quo. People just want to hear big tech bad, let’s hurt big tech. If your looking for that, there countless pundits that will provide that “analysis”. He is absolutely willing to regulate big tech. He was immediately against the purchase of WhatsApp and Instagram.

by ajkjk 3y ago

natdempk 3y ago

I get it, but also I think this is one of the things that makes Ben so good at his job and is also a bit more nuanced than might initially appear. He (mostly) isn't interested in being an activist for a certain perspective and really just seems to think about things in terms of systems, incentives, and revealed preferences as they exist today. I think this can butt heads with idealist types who want things to be a different way, but to me it's a big part of what makes his writing and analysis so good.

SamBam 3y ago
You may be right, but you may also be exemplifying am unconscious bias that pro-corporate/pro-existing-power-structures = neutral, and anti- those things is "idealist" and so not neutral.
- natdempk 3y ago
  This is not really how I think about things. I think of idealist = different from current reality based on some principles. Often to me idealist also means that they wish things were different from the way they ended up on ideological grounds, but those grounds are incompatible with the current incentives/systems that led to the current state for some reason. I don't really think the current system is neutral, more that is just is what exists today for some reasons, and that anything else proposed has to actually contend with those reasons/forces/incentives.

grantc 3y ago

You could browse the fiction shelves at a local bookseller; they may have things approximating what you seek.

ddkper 3y ago

>> Basically I'd love to find a publication that's similar better reflects my values. Beware of an active search for an echo chamber. Because for example: >>it constantly runs the wrong way if you're at all skeptical of, like, giant business or ads or AI... at a social level. Is a viewpoint that could very well be wrong when faced with the analysis from a different perspective from yours. Having someone repeat your values to you doesn't make it true or take into account trade-offs that are being made which could prompt you to change your opinion.

ajkjk 3y ago
That doesn't make any sense. I'm looking for someone whose fundamental ethics reflects mine so that their analysis of e.g. "should society work this way" has some overlap with what I actually want to see in the world. They are fully capable, as am I, into taking into account tradeoffs and changing our opinions. Stratechery's analysis is, when it broaches on ethics, based on ethics shared by a subset of rich people and (imo) amoral technologists and, I think, pretty much no one else. Like I have an aesthetic interest in disallowing corporations from implementing psychological manipulation to prevent me from e.g. quitting their services. Ben can see no problem with Amazon's arcane process for quitting Prime. So, fine, he's not a person I want speaking for me or, like, affecting any policy on the matter whatsoever.
- flakiness 3y ago
  As other comments said, Platformer might be one you like. The author also is hosting a podcast (which is free) if you are OK with the audio media: https://www.nytimes.com/column/hard-fork https://www.nytimes.com/column/hard-fork It has a bit more anti-tech vibe as one of the co-hosts comes from NYT. I think it's a good complement to Stratechery.
- ddkper 3y ago
  But your fundamental ethics are something that can be changed by criticism and exposure to opposing viewpoints. If you have such a static view of your beliefs and opinions I would urge you to reflect on that. >>They are fully capable, as am I, into taking into account tradeoffs and changing our opinions. That may be, but people generally are incentivized to be far more charitable to their position than the opposition. Reading the opposition from the oppositions own formulation will be a far greater defense of what they actually think in terms of tradeoffs. >>Like I have an aesthetic interest in disallowing corporations from implementing psychological manipulation to prevent me from e.g. quitting their services. Ben himself in the article you are referring to says this is shady, but he also points out that its generally not nearly as bad as say the NYT which requires you to call via phone to unsubscribe, and that the conflict with the regulators is comparatively heavy handed and doesn't take into account the tradeoffs he wants to discuss in his article. >>So, fine, he's not a person I want speaking for me or, like, affecting any policy on the matter whatsoever. Ok, not really up to you though. Ideas enter the marketplace and compete with each other. The ones that people find the most persuasive end up affecting the policy. Clearly his view points are not affecting the policy that much seeing as he is directly responding to regulation that is occurring and antithetical to what he believes is correct.

canes123456 3y ago

There is absolutely a tech optimism bias which he is upfront about. I would find it very hard to find any one that deeply understands technology and makes their living writing about technology that does not think technological progress is a net positive. There is another part where he just saying how things are which people don’t like to hear. They don’t like how powerful the big tech companies are but don’t want to grapple with the reasons they are big or delve into the nuances of the impacts of changing the status quo. People just want to hear big tech bad, let’s hurt big tech. If your looking for that, there countless pundits that will provide that “analysis”. He is absolutely willing to regulate big tech. He was immediately against the purchase of WhatsApp and Instagram.