Manifestos and Monopolies
stratechery.com
Manifestos and Monopolies
1–10 of 47 posts
Re: Manifestos and Monopolies
#2> I have probably written more positive pieces about Facebook than just about any other company, and frankly, still will.
> My deep-rooted suspicion of Zuckerberg’s manifesto has nothing to do with Facebook or Zuckerberg; I suspect that we agree on more political goals than not.
> I don’t necessarily begrudge Facebook this dominance;
> Moreover, my proposals are in line with Zuckerberg’s proclaimed goals:
I don't honestly like how the author keeps doing this two steps forward, one step back approach, hedging at every turn. I guess hedging is the "smart" strategy, and he's fond of calling himself a strategist. However, it makes for a fairly annoying read.
It echoes that term that mocks all the security at airports, "security theater", but this one instead is a theater of even-handedness. I think the pieces against Facebook need to be more decisive and less concerned with themselves.
Re: Manifestos and Monopolies
#3I use FB to keep in touch with friends who mostly live far from me. That's all I really want, but that makes FB no money. What I wish I could do was build exactly that because in the end that's what most people really care about; however there is exactly zero money to do this sort of thing since FB has basically cornered the market in connecting people.
The basic question is: would you pay $1 a month to keep in touch with friends without ads? I doubt anyone would. This is what FB makes per person from ads. Free is a powerful monopoly.
Re: Manifestos and Monopolies
#4> I have probably written more positive pieces about Facebook than just about any other company, and frankly, still will. > My deep-rooted suspicion of Zuckerberg’s manifesto has nothing to do with Facebook or Zuckerberg; I suspect that we agree on more political goals than not. > I don’t necessarily begrudge Facebook this dominance; > Moreover, my proposals are in line with Zuckerberg’s proclaimed goals: I don't hon…
He's saying:
1. Facebook is executing a cunning strategy brilliantly; and
2. The power this centralizes in Zuckerberg is concerning; although
3. I'm not as worried as I might otherwise be because I trust him with that power.
It's less hedging than expressing a nuanced point.
Re: Manifestos and Monopolies
#5[deleted]
Re: Manifestos and Monopolies
#6I use FB to keep in touch with friends who mostly live far from me. That's all I really want, but that makes FB no money. What I wish I could do was build exactly that because in the end that's what most people really care about; however there is exactly zero money to do this sort of thing since FB has basically cornered the market in connecting people. The basic question is: would you pay $1 a month to keep in touch…
The problem that some people realize sooner or later, is that "Free" isn't free.
"If you are not paying for it, you're not the customer; you're the product being sold." -Andrew Lewis
Re: Manifestos and Monopolies
#7I use FB to keep in touch with friends who mostly live far from me. That's all I really want, but that makes FB no money. What I wish I could do was build exactly that because in the end that's what most people really care about; however there is exactly zero money to do this sort of thing since FB has basically cornered the market in connecting people. The basic question is: would you pay $1 a month to keep in touch…
I think that the reason why people wouldn't pay $1 per month is mostly because of inconvenience. If people had to pay for Facebook as part of their income tax (which amounted to about $12 per year), then I think a lot of people would be OK with that and everyone would be better off overall.
The problem is that the force of marketing is invisible. Even people who are resistant to targeted advertising are at least susceptible to indirect advertising through peer pressure from their friends... If all your friends do something, you will probably start doing it too - Or else, over time, they might stop being friends with you.
I don't use Facebook much and so I rarely see their ads but I can clearly feel the effects of Facebook's advertising in my life through my personal and professional relationships.
Re: Manifestos and Monopolies
#8> I have probably written more positive pieces about Facebook than just about any other company, and frankly, still will. > My deep-rooted suspicion of Zuckerberg’s manifesto has nothing to do with Facebook or Zuckerberg; I suspect that we agree on more political goals than not. > I don’t necessarily begrudge Facebook this dominance; > Moreover, my proposals are in line with Zuckerberg’s proclaimed goals: I don't hon…
He's saying: 1. Facebook is executing a cunning strategy brilliantly; and 2. The power this centralizes in Zuckerberg is concerning; although 3. I'm not as worried as I might otherwise be because I trust him with that power. It's less hedging than expressing a nuanced point.
I think it could also be described as a bait-and-switch.
> You think MZ's vision of replacing democratic institutions with facebook is a bad idea? Me too!
becomes
> Let me point out to you all the ways that MZ's intentions are good. I guess he's really a nice guy and we should trust him to provide a replacement for a failing democracy.
Personally, I can't get behind it, no matter how nuanced the rhetorical strategy used to persuade me.
Re: Manifestos and Monopolies
#9I use FB to keep in touch with friends who mostly live far from me. That's all I really want, but that makes FB no money. What I wish I could do was build exactly that because in the end that's what most people really care about; however there is exactly zero money to do this sort of thing since FB has basically cornered the market in connecting people. The basic question is: would you pay $1 a month to keep in touch…
I think I would. After a decade of free email with ads, I now pay FastMail five bucks a month. For status updates, an up-to-date contact card, and event coordination I'd pay a buck or two. But I might be in the minority.
Re: Manifestos and Monopolies
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
He's saying: 1. Facebook is executing a cunning strategy brilliantly; and 2. The power this centralizes in Zuckerberg is concerning; although 3. I'm not as worried as I might otherwise be because I trust him with that power. It's less hedging than expressing a nuanced point.
I think it could also be described as a bait-and-switch. > You think MZ's vision of replacing democratic institutions with facebook is a bad idea? Me too! becomes > Let me point out to you all the ways that MZ's intentions are good. I guess he's really a nice guy and we should trust him to provide a replacement for a failing democracy. Personally, I can't get behind it, no matter how nuanced the rhetorical strategy u…
It's an articulation of the general versus the specific. He's saying the general idea underpinning Zuckerberg's manifesto is concerning. He's just personally okay given it's specifically Zuckerberg manning the helm. (Separately, he says Facebook is in a good economic position. That's a separate train of thought from the manifesto discussion.)