2 ms·

I think you're diminishing the role of a big "good" vision in the process of innovation. What's the guiding vision of the internet community ? as far as i can

by ippisl 14y ago

I think you're diminishing the role of a big "good" vision in the process of innovation. What's the guiding vision of the internet community ? as far as i can tell is mostly there's no valuable guiding vision. It's all about rapid trial and error to appeal to as many people as possible with whatever idea that will work. So we end with most of the web development community working on creating junk-food sites, optimizing ads and new ways to sell stuff. This way you get McDonalds and TV advertising invented. Big inventions indeed , mostly with negative value. Of course there are some clusters of the web with a big guiding vision: collaborative consumption, using the power of the web to reduce prices, better ways to share important knowledge, new labor marketplaces, democratizing innovation. And you see a qualitative difference between both sorts of companies.

netcan 14y ago
I don't think the difference is as qualitative as you might think. "using the power of the web to reduce prices" -- If any company had 1/10 that influence here that Wal Mart has had, they would be doing well.
confluence 14y ago
Get off your high horse - the market dictates usefulness within the bounds of negative externality regulation and human rights. The internet has produced more value over the preceding 10 years than essentially any other industry. "Purists" irritate me for the very reason that they don't work in the real messy world. People like McDonalds. People like watching TV. Just because you don't like it doesn't matter. Crass consumerism is the saving grace of the United States - it's what allows companies to thrive and grow and build wealth. "Important" things are overrated by those who don't do. Google's Ads and YouTube's cat videos have done more for the web than Wikipedia.
- nickpinkston 14y ago
  The issue here is all wrapped up in "bounds of negative externality regulation". I'd hate to 4Step my way into being Zygna - I don't think it's useful for the end users and is nearly 100% parasitic. The market isn't perfect due to there being no "digital-heroin regulations" to prevent this drag on human progress. I think we can say with confidence that we're in a local optimum in current market conditions, and some us - myself included - wish to select ourselves out of doing such companies. "Wealth creation" is a byword for justifying rent seeking as if that was an end in itself - "job creators" at least has some positive end in sight. The argument you make "cat videos, etc." being beneficial is a valid one. The 90% of shit is why we have much of our infrastructure from AWS to FedEx. However, it's dangerous to assume that this is the only, or best, path to increasing our standard of living, and moreover to not see why we shouldn't try, in our own activities, to try to rise above it. Any concerted effort on solving a problem produces the effects you speak of - it's not just crap. Pure end-user numbers, vis-a-vis "crass consumerism", are not what dictate these positive externalities (AWS, etc.) that we experience. It's likely the challenge of the problem with respect to having a product-market fit. In other words - a hard problem solved for a small market is likely to produce outsized spillover effects - like why Rails powers productivity software and now tons of things. There is a middle ground between the dreamers and the rent seekers where the biggest impact to society can be gained. Rent seeking hoping for spillover is not the optimum path. Instead, if you really do want to make an impact first, find a real problem that benefits humanity and solve it - don't dream about it, and don't whitewash what's black.

by ippisl 14y ago

netcan 14y ago

I don't think the difference is as qualitative as you might think. "using the power of the web to reduce prices" -- If any company had 1/10 that influence here that Wal Mart has had, they would be doing well.

confluence 14y ago

Get off your high horse - the market dictates usefulness within the bounds of negative externality regulation and human rights. The internet has produced more value over the preceding 10 years than essentially any other industry. "Purists" irritate me for the very reason that they don't work in the real messy world. People like McDonalds. People like watching TV. Just because you don't like it doesn't matter. Crass consumerism is the saving grace of the United States - it's what allows companies to thrive and grow and build wealth. "Important" things are overrated by those who don't do. Google's Ads and YouTube's cat videos have done more for the web than Wikipedia.

nickpinkston 14y ago
The issue here is all wrapped up in "bounds of negative externality regulation". I'd hate to 4Step my way into being Zygna - I don't think it's useful for the end users and is nearly 100% parasitic. The market isn't perfect due to there being no "digital-heroin regulations" to prevent this drag on human progress. I think we can say with confidence that we're in a local optimum in current market conditions, and some us - myself included - wish to select ourselves out of doing such companies. "Wealth creation" is a byword for justifying rent seeking as if that was an end in itself - "job creators" at least has some positive end in sight. The argument you make "cat videos, etc." being beneficial is a valid one. The 90% of shit is why we have much of our infrastructure from AWS to FedEx. However, it's dangerous to assume that this is the only, or best, path to increasing our standard of living, and moreover to not see why we shouldn't try, in our own activities, to try to rise above it. Any concerted effort on solving a problem produces the effects you speak of - it's not just crap. Pure end-user numbers, vis-a-vis "crass consumerism", are not what dictate these positive externalities (AWS, etc.) that we experience. It's likely the challenge of the problem with respect to having a product-market fit. In other words - a hard problem solved for a small market is likely to produce outsized spillover effects - like why Rails powers productivity software and now tons of things. There is a middle ground between the dreamers and the rent seekers where the biggest impact to society can be gained. Rent seeking hoping for spillover is not the optimum path. Instead, if you really do want to make an impact first, find a real problem that benefits humanity and solve it - don't dream about it, and don't whitewash what's black.