Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Achtung: Decentralize, decentralize, decentralize

drewdevault.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 174 posts

Re: Achtung: Decentralize, decentralize, decentralize

#151

Post by d0lph »

WorldMaker wrote: post #148
d0lph wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This line of reasoning seems to forget that the ultimate control belongs to the customer. Thus we see Facebook taking a big hit for collecting personal information people assumed was private.

The trouble being that customer is 1) an aggregate (there likely is no the customer, just some customers, maybe a lot of them), 2) fuzzy (Facebook's real customers are advertisers, they pay the bills). How do non-ad-buying users matter as customers to Facebook? Only so far as they are aggregate eyeballs to feed to the real customers, advertisers? The sad specter of case law dating at least as far back to Dodge v Ford…

If you do something users don't like, they will leave if they want to, or else they don't care.

> How do non-ad-buying users matter as customers to Facebook

They are literally all Facebook has, eyeballs.

Re: Achtung: Decentralize, decentralize, decentralize

#152

Post by d0lph »

WorldMaker wrote: post #150
d0lph wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any company that places the wants of the shareholders above the customers risks losing their customer base (see Facebook).

So far Facebook's paying customers, the advertisers, seem unworried?

Either way, customers leave, advertisers leave.

Also, while I do like the expression "if you're not a customer, you're a product", it does not change the actual definition of the word customer.

Re: Achtung: Decentralize, decentralize, decentralize

#153

Post by d0lph »

WorldMaker wrote: post #147
d0lph wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those are pretty different though, Costco is a "membership-only warehouse club" who sells through wholesale.

So is Sam's Club and that's owned by Walmart?

So is their corporate culture different from Walmart's?

Re: Achtung: Decentralize, decentralize, decentralize

#154

Post by WorldMaker »

d0lph wrote: post #152
WorldMaker wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So far Facebook's paying customers, the advertisers, seem unworried?

Either way, customers leave, advertisers leave. Also, while I do like the expression "if you're not a customer, you're a product", it does not change the actual definition of the word customer.

First definition via Oxford Dictionaries, emphasis mine:

> a person or organization that buys goods or services from a store or business

You may be confusing the word "customer" with the word "user"?

Re: Achtung: Decentralize, decentralize, decentralize

#155

Post by tortasaur »

redthrow wrote: post #62
Sir_Cmpwn wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't imply it's about privacy. I talk entirely about power distribution in this article.

Do people who run the centralised, private Signal app have more power over the user than people who run decentralised, non-private Mastodon instances? Or do Mastodon people say it's strictly for broadcasting and encourage people to use proper end-to-end encrypted messaging apps for private communication?

The latter.

Re: Achtung: Decentralize, decentralize, decentralize

#156

Post by d0lph »

WorldMaker wrote: post #154
d0lph wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Either way, customers leave, advertisers leave. Also, while I do like the expression "if you're not a customer, you're a product", it does not change the actual definition of the word customer.

First definition via Oxford Dictionaries, emphasis mine: > a person or organization that buys goods or services from a store or business You may be confusing the word "customer" with the word "user"?

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/customer.html

> 1. General: A party that receives or consumes products (goods or services) and has the ability to choose between different products and suppliers. See also buyer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Customer

> In sales, commerce and economics, a customer (sometimes known as a client, buyer, or purchaser) is the recipient of a good, service, product or an idea - obtained from a seller, vendor, or supplier via a financial transaction or exchange for money or some other valuable consideration

I think to me the customer is the one receiving the product, whether or not they have actually spent money.

Also for consideration, "paying customer" and "non-paying customer" are common(?) phrases.

Re: Achtung: Decentralize, decentralize, decentralize

#157

Post by tmikaeld »

Avamander wrote: post #125
tmikaeld wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There could be made a difference between private and public content and the private content should be deletable, it's private afterall.

But private for whom? I mean, if someone who posted a group picture wants to delete it, it's private for that group, how should those cases be handled properly, without disrupting the UX for others.

Pictures being forcefully taken down due to ownership claims frequently happen around the net.

I think a line has to be drawn on the part of private ownership when it comes to privately created content.

Re: Achtung: Decentralize, decentralize, decentralize

#158

Post by WorldMaker »

d0lph wrote: post #151
WorldMaker wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The trouble being that customer is 1) an aggregate (there likely is no the customer, just some customers, maybe a lot of them), 2) fuzzy (Facebook's real customers are advertisers, they pay the bills). How do non-ad-buying users matter as customers to Facebook? Only so far as they are aggregate eyeballs to feed to the real customers, advertisers? The sad specter of case law dating at least as far back to Dodge v Ford…

If you do something users don't like, they will leave if they want to, or else they don't care. > How do non-ad-buying users matter as customers to Facebook They are literally all Facebook has, eyeballs.

Yes, but see point 1. Facebook only has eyeballs in aggregate, as statistics (to show/hide from advertisers as Facebook sees fit). What does one snowflake matter to the mountain? When is an avalanche visible to Facebook? When is that avalanche visible to its customers, the advertisers? (Directly: When it tells them, presumably. If it tells them. Indirectly: Through slow user studies, and Big Data analysis, presumably.)

Re: Achtung: Decentralize, decentralize, decentralize

#159

Post by d0lph »

WorldMaker wrote: post #158
d0lph wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you do something users don't like, they will leave if they want to, or else they don't care. > How do non-ad-buying users matter as customers to Facebook They are literally all Facebook has, eyeballs.

Yes, but see point 1. Facebook only has eyeballs in aggregate, as statistics (to show/hide from advertisers as Facebook sees fit). What does one snowflake matter to the mountain? When is an avalanche visible to Facebook? When is that avalanche visible to its customers, the advertisers? (Directly: When it tells them, presumably. If it tells them. Indirectly: Through slow user studies, and Big Data analysis, presumably…

> When it tells them, presumably.

Snowflakes don't matter, if only one Facebook user cares about their privacy, then Facebook shouldn't care. Is it a perfect system? No. But it is democratic.

Re: Achtung: Decentralize, decentralize, decentralize

#160

Post by notyourday »

d0lph wrote: post #145
notyourday wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not a myth what so ever: the company does whatever those that control the majority of the shares want it to do. Absolutely no one else, unless the company engages in illegal activity has any say. Corporations are democracies with the rules of majority that are spelled out in their documents.

This line of reasoning seems to forget that the ultimate control belongs to the customer. Thus we see Facebook taking a big hit for collecting personal information people assumed was private.

Correct. The customer has no control what so ever until the company runs out of money operating at a loss ( no customers ) that it has and is unable to find a way to raise money from the existing shareholder or new shareholders. When that event happens, the company shareholder either change the company to get the customers or the company goes out of business and shareholders get wiped out.
Post reply on HN