4 ms·

I’ve read about this concept the Indians have called “izzat” which probably explains why they have arranged marriages. You can imagine the deceitful games that

I’ve read about this concept the Indians have called “izzat” which probably explains why they have arranged marriages. You can imagine the deceitful games that might be played on unsuspecting brides and bridegrooms if one doesn’t find deceitful games out of bounds morally; arranged marriages address that. Arranged marriages are unpopular because we value choice. For the same reason we, westerners, abhor monopolies that transform society, wreck age old institutions, remove choice and limit access to what once was free.

keepamovin 8mo ago
Free doesn't emerge from the quantum vacuum of spacetime in the realm of digital products however. It's not a innate natural right, but a choice, of a provider at a given point in time. It might change. Cost might be levied. Cost should be expecdted in free exchange. Especially as a westerner! Aside from that - what age old institutions are wrecked by monopolies, or which ones are you talking about it? Genuinely curious.
- learingsci 8mo ago
  From a software standpoint, the ones I think of are Tinder, Facebook, X, YouTube. Each has dramatically altered how we do things like how we stay connected with friends and family, court potential romantic partners, participate in public dialogue and learn. Arguably, rather than supplementing cultural institutions, they’ve to a large extent replaced what was with something more addictive or convenient. Fine. But I’d argue they’ve done it with measurable deleterious effects.
  - keepamovin 8mo ago
    Yeah, I agree with the reading that these kind of large information pipelines are essentially some kind of institutions almost like public railways or water and electricity because they’ve become essential. I mean there’s a little bit more nuance because not everybody wants nor needs a Facebook or whatever but if you make the bucket big enough, it seems almost everybody uses something inside of it. I see your point now about monopoly. It’s more sort of monopoly in the digital age and it’s pretty coherent what you’re saying, From the narrow point of view that you’re meaning here, and it is a significant point. I think the only solution in that case is you have to treat them as institutions and they have to be run for the public benefit - but saying that sounds ridiculous and I don’t think it could ever work so I guess our societies have to come up with some other solutions. But the problem, your point is referencing, is very real.

keepamovin 8mo ago

Free doesn't emerge from the quantum vacuum of spacetime in the realm of digital products however. It's not a innate natural right, but a choice, of a provider at a given point in time. It might change. Cost might be levied. Cost should be expecdted in free exchange. Especially as a westerner! Aside from that - what age old institutions are wrecked by monopolies, or which ones are you talking about it? Genuinely curious.

learingsci 8mo ago
From a software standpoint, the ones I think of are Tinder, Facebook, X, YouTube. Each has dramatically altered how we do things like how we stay connected with friends and family, court potential romantic partners, participate in public dialogue and learn. Arguably, rather than supplementing cultural institutions, they’ve to a large extent replaced what was with something more addictive or convenient. Fine. But I’d argue they’ve done it with measurable deleterious effects.
- keepamovin 8mo ago
  Yeah, I agree with the reading that these kind of large information pipelines are essentially some kind of institutions almost like public railways or water and electricity because they’ve become essential. I mean there’s a little bit more nuance because not everybody wants nor needs a Facebook or whatever but if you make the bucket big enough, it seems almost everybody uses something inside of it. I see your point now about monopoly. It’s more sort of monopoly in the digital age and it’s pretty coherent what you’re saying, From the narrow point of view that you’re meaning here, and it is a significant point. I think the only solution in that case is you have to treat them as institutions and they have to be run for the public benefit - but saying that sounds ridiculous and I don’t think it could ever work so I guess our societies have to come up with some other solutions. But the problem, your point is referencing, is very real.