11–20 of 101 posts
I've read a fair bit of PG's writing but hadn't dug into The Pie Fallacy referenced here. Wow, what utter nonsense. I've certainly not agreed with everything PG comes out with but this is a new logical low. And it's not just the usual problem of an oversimplified analogy not accurately representing more complex systems, the analogy[0] isn't even internally consistent with itself.
I have recently been given a $2500 toy by $EMPLOYER$ and I still don't need it.
Personal anecdote aside, is this post seriously advocating for creating needs from scratch?
> Wealth is not a fixed pie (PG). I've read a fair bit of PG's writing but hadn't dug into The Pie Fallacy referenced here. Wow, what utter nonsense. I've certainly not agreed with everything PG comes out with but this is a new logical low. And it's not just the usual problem of an oversimplified analogy not accurately representing more complex systems, the analogy[0] isn't even internally consistent with itself. [0]…
”We’re building value, not just taking it away from someone else.” Bullshit. Meta's whole business is predation on user's attention. If I am scrolling their stupid page, then I am not scrolling some other stupid page. This is as zero-sum as it gets.
This is not even contestable. Google and FB took the advertising money from everyone else. Businesses still pay (and always have) the same % in advertising, only it's 2 monopolies now instead of thousands of media.
That's completely false. A lot of small businesses (think housewifes selling cupcakes) were not viable before Google and especially Facebook/Instagram — they simply could not realistically find their consumers before internet advertising.
>None of us knew we needed Steve’s devices until they were given to us. I have recently been given a $2500 toy by $EMPLOYER$ and I still don't need it. Personal anecdote aside, is this post seriously advocating for creating needs from scratch?
I’m curious why anyone takes inspiration from Zuckerberg.
Its magic, like a superpower.
”We’re building value, not just taking it away from someone else.” Bullshit. Meta's whole business is predation on user's attention. If I am scrolling their stupid page, then I am not scrolling some other stupid page. This is as zero-sum as it gets.
This is not even contestable. Google and FB took the advertising money from everyone else. Businesses still pay (and always have) the same % in advertising, only it's 2 monopolies now instead of thousands of media.
Zuckerberg is fundamentally right [1], and I think it's a good observation that many people fail to make. But I think it's companies other than Facebook/Meta that are creating the new value. [1] https://clickhole.com/heartbreaking-the-worst-person-you-kno...
he is right in a way that makes it hard to see what facebook is turning into profit: the users attention. sure they are creating a space without taking away volume for other people to build there, but nobody will care about the other things because a proper map of the internet is not concerned with what is there, but what a given user spends their attention on.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is not even contestable. Google and FB took the advertising money from everyone else. Businesses still pay (and always have) the same % in advertising, only it's 2 monopolies now instead of thousands of media.
I'm no fan of ads, but I would still contest that. The pre-Internet advertising arsenal was all remarkably blunt weapons (newspaper ads, TV, radio, direct mail) that made targeting very difficult and were out of reach or not economic for countless businesses. Now anybody can buy precisely targeted impressions for any keyword under the sun and very closely track their performance, opening up entirely new markets.
> Wealth is not a fixed pie (PG). I've read a fair bit of PG's writing but hadn't dug into The Pie Fallacy referenced here. Wow, what utter nonsense. I've certainly not agreed with everything PG comes out with but this is a new logical low. And it's not just the usual problem of an oversimplified analogy not accurately representing more complex systems, the analogy[0] isn't even internally consistent with itself. [0]…