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

Thieves of Experience: How Google and Facebook Corrupted Capitalism

lareviewofbooks.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 222 posts

Re: Thieves of Experience: How Google and Facebook Corrupted Capitalism

#131

Post by adventured »

rib3ye wrote: post #127
elliekelly wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is so true. Even on iPhone. I was recently traveling abroad and lost my debit card so I cancelled it. I had a credit card for the remainder of my travels but I wanted to wait to replace my iTunes/App Store payment with my new debit card number instead of my credit card. Well when Apple tried to run my disabled debit card for my monthly fees (Apple Music, extra iCloud storage space, etc.) the card didn't work and…

Not sure I see the problem, you can still access everything you've paid for to date, I think it's fair. If you were to leave stuff with a storage company and let payment lapse, they would hold it as collateral until you paid.

The problem I see with it, is the parent is claiming their app store access was entirely bricked.

The physical storage company holds your stuff - and eventually liquidates it - because you're paying to rent that space and your stuff is inside of their physical property. You aren't paying monthly rent to access the app store when you buy an iPhone, that's supposedly free to access (the parent mentions not being able to even update free apps). Apple bricking access to the app store changes that equation, they're proclaiming by doing that that the app store isn't always free to access as a baseline.

Apple is certainly within their rights to go that direction as a business. However, I'm certain that's a very different value proposition than what nearly all iPhone buyers think they're getting when they buy their very expensive phone (ie they expect free, unencumbered access to the app store as a minimum offering whether they buy any other Apple services or not).

Re: Thieves of Experience: How Google and Facebook Corrupted Capitalism

#132

Post by angel_j »

darkpuma wrote: post #106
angel_j wrote: post #80

Terms of Service are really out of control, and probably need a democratic checkup. One cannot sign away constitutional rights, which means somewhere there is a line to draw. When is a company abusing it's first amendment rights and dangerously coercing behavior, a la "yelling fire in theater"? At scale, this doesn't have to be explicitly extreme or violent to have actual extreme or violent effects. When is it going…

> "When is a company abusing it's first amendment rights and dangerously coercing behavior, a la "yelling fire in theater"?" I really wish people would stop using that example. That standard of free speech is obsolete, and it comes from an abhorrent case where a draft protestor during WWI was arrested for telling people to dodge the draft. "Yelling fire in a theater" was used to justify upholding his conviction. It's…

Fair editorial suggestion, no doubt. Will change to 'yelling "terrorists!" on a busy day at Disneyland'.

H/e, that the example was used to uphold an immoral conviction does not make it an "immoral standard"; it makes the jury immoral people; "...fire!" is basically a metaphor at this point, an easy-to-abstract notion for when the first amendment will not defend you.

Re: Thieves of Experience: How Google and Facebook Corrupted Capitalism

#133

Post by chillacy »

andrenth wrote: post #22
meroes wrote: post #8

[flagged]

Slavery predates capitalism, it’s definitely not a consequence of it. In fact, since slaves can’t be consumers, capitalism works as an incentive for freedom.

I think the example alludes to the fact that the Atlantic slave trade was grown mainly by companies, not government.

Re: Thieves of Experience: How Google and Facebook Corrupted Capitalism

#134

Post by chillacy »

simplecomplex wrote: post #76

> Surveillance capitalism’s real products, vaporous but immensely valuable, are predictions about our future behavior Enough of the juvenile hyperbole. Facebook nor Google sells future predictions of users. Facebook’s customers are advertisers. They sell ad placement. Thats a fact, not an opinion or analysis. Why should anyone take criticisms of Facebook seriously from people who don’t understand how Facebook even ma…

Here’s my version:

On the surface the media is about keeping us informed.

But the incentive structure of media companies means that media’s real product is fear, write headlines and sell sensationalism in order to hook readers and sell subscriptions.

When co-opted by governments they sell control of the zeitgeist, sometimes we call that propaganda.

Re: Thieves of Experience: How Google and Facebook Corrupted Capitalism

#135

Post by chillacy »

TACIXAT wrote: post #45
harryh wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nah, this sounds pithy but isn't true: Facebook needs you to like them so you voluntarily come back. You are the customer. “You are the product” misunderstands the business. ( https://twitter.com/pt/status/979092827522048000 )

What if the "customer" is trained through gamification and other psychological tricks to come back? I hated Facebook and still had the muscle memory of + face . I still do that sometimes after I've seen the logo or name even though I don't have an account anymore. It's like, do you go back to the sugary foods cause they're so healthy and you love them, or are you low key addicted? I don't really consider that a healt…

I think you’re getting at a great paradox of humanism: in a society where the customer is always right, one person one vote, and authenticity comes from the self... what if there is no such thing as a true self and we’re just a grab bag of needs and fears glued together with a hasty narrative?

Re: Thieves of Experience: How Google and Facebook Corrupted Capitalism

#136

Post by darkpuma »

smnrchrds wrote: post #123
darkpuma wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "When is a company abusing it's first amendment rights and dangerously coercing behavior, a la "yelling fire in theater"?" I really wish people would stop using that example. That standard of free speech is obsolete, and it comes from an abhorrent case where a draft protestor during WWI was arrested for telling people to dodge the draft. "Yelling fire in a theater" was used to justify upholding his conviction. It's…

> That standard of free speech is obsolete What is the modern example/standard?

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

Re: Thieves of Experience: How Google and Facebook Corrupted Capitalism

#137

Post by darkpuma »

angel_j wrote: post #132
darkpuma wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "When is a company abusing it's first amendment rights and dangerously coercing behavior, a la "yelling fire in theater"?" I really wish people would stop using that example. That standard of free speech is obsolete, and it comes from an abhorrent case where a draft protestor during WWI was arrested for telling people to dodge the draft. "Yelling fire in a theater" was used to justify upholding his conviction. It's…

Fair editorial suggestion, no doubt. Will change to 'yelling "terrorists!" on a busy day at Disneyland'. H/e, that the example was used to uphold an immoral conviction does not make it an "immoral standard"; it makes the jury immoral people; "...fire!" is basically a metaphor at this point, an easy-to-abstract notion for when the first amendment will not defend you.

"Fire in a crowded theater" came from the SCOTUS justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., not a jury.

"Yelling fire" in this case was a metaphor for "opposing the draft."

Re: Thieves of Experience: How Google and Facebook Corrupted Capitalism

#138

Post by skh »

naveen99 wrote: post #129
skh wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I own some Apple stock. I don’t influence in any meaningful way how Apple spends its money. I don’t influence in any meaningful way their corporate policy. The owners of Apple, save for a few individuals, don’t have a real say in how Apple uses its freedom of speech. Apple is not a group of people coming together in the same way political organizations are and Apple/Google/Exxon, etc. have far more money to send on p…

You can sell your shares if you think Apple is spending money that is not good for making its shareholders more money. You selling shares will have non zero impact on the market price of Apple shares.

I see you missed the entire point of my post.

Re: Thieves of Experience: How Google and Facebook Corrupted Capitalism

#139

Post by stevenicr »

simplecomplex wrote: post #76

> Surveillance capitalism’s real products, vaporous but immensely valuable, are predictions about our future behavior Enough of the juvenile hyperbole. Facebook nor Google sells future predictions of users. Facebook’s customers are advertisers. They sell ad placement. Thats a fact, not an opinion or analysis. Why should anyone take criticisms of Facebook seriously from people who don’t understand how Facebook even ma…

Maybe they do more than "sells future predictions" - but I think what you are quoting is still basically true.

Sure some ad sales are simply general feel good branding, some ads may be to get more data for use years later, however many of the ads I have run with both fbk and big G were in fact using their predictions of the future.

search term "dentist open saturday" - predicting a future dental visit.

realtor Portland - predicting future buying or selling of property.

yes their customers in which they can take money from are advertisers, and the product they are selling is the fbook user and google user, often predicting a future choice, and offering us a chance to influence for the right price.

The more they know about their product (the end user) like zip code, the more valuable sometimes.

There are sometimes issues when ads on a web site are illegal, and many more times when an advertisement is right or wrong is not so black and white but depends on many other factors.

Re: Thieves of Experience: How Google and Facebook Corrupted Capitalism

#140

Post by fiddlerwoaroof »

tokyodude wrote: post #124
ergothus wrote: post #24

I'm a bit torn on this - for a long while, I saw Google as trying to promote "the right way" of doing things, and only getting frustrated and doing it themselves after handset manufacturers and cell providers kept doing it wrong. I mean, was the original Nexus anything other than "look everyone, this is how it SHOULD be done, but we have no interest in actually being the ones to do it"? That doesn't deny that Google…

the most random thing ticked me from Google good toward Google evil yesterday when I discovered an Android app can choose whether or not youre allowed to take a screenshot. (I'm normally iOS but have a Pixel 2 for testing) Apps imo should not have that control. It's my phone. I should be able to capture what I want. I shouldn't need to get out another device to take a picture of a bug or record a transaction for safe…

I agree, but this battle has already basically lost because of DRM requirements for streaming video: I don't think you can take a screenshot of a Netflix or Amazon Prime video on any platform.
Post reply on HN