The Socialist Republic of Twitter • Hacker News Board

Re: The Socialist Republic of Twitter

#11

Post by lukifer » Thu, Aug 23, 2012, 8:57 PM UTC

magicarp wrote: post #8

lukifer wrote: post #3

It is an often-missed subtlety of capitalism that a free market must include the existence of privately controlled economies that act in socialist ways. (Apple exerts tyrannical control over its app economy; Netflix's light users subsidize its heavy users; etc.) Generally, even the most staunch libertarians are okay with such things because the payments and relationships are voluntary, issues like monopoly and free w…

> "Dear App.net: go free-for-most with a paid tier, and you just might take over the world." I don't think App.net offering a paid tier would protect them from making the same mistakes as Twitter, Facebook, and Google down the road. If they grow to the size of any of those companies, they'd be susceptible to the same forces and temptations that are driving Twitter down its current path.

Yes, that is absolutely true, especially if/when it accepted investment capital or changed hands. But just because it can succumb to those temptations doesn't mean it will, and if it does, someone will start The Next Open Social Service/Protocol, and progress marches on.

Re: The Socialist Republic of Twitter

#12

Post by diego » Thu, Aug 23, 2012, 9:00 PM UTC

smacktoward wrote: post #10

diego wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not meant to be taken literally. I'm using a figure of speech called hyperbole to drive a point.

But it actually undermines your point. You're arguing that Twitter as it exists today is somehow inherently "democratic" and run in the public interest because some users subsidize others. And that's just incorrect; those users subsidize the others because it is in their financial interest to do so. They want their ads to show where the eyeballs are, that's all. If the economics changed and it suddenly became more at…

You didn't understand my point. The advertisers are not the ones who subsidize users. Users who click on ads subsidize users who don't.

You are also repeating the last part of my post!

Re: The Socialist Republic of Twitter

#13

Post by polemic » Thu, Aug 23, 2012, 9:07 PM UTC

While one western user might be produce more income than a single user in a developing country, that isn't really relevant as long as twitter can provide massive scale at almost no cost. Wealthier users might subsidize ongoing growth and development, but not the operation of the service. This isn't socialism, just economics at work :/

Re: The Socialist Republic of Twitter

#14

Post by anigbrowl » Thu, Aug 23, 2012, 9:43 PM UTC

diego wrote: post #12

smacktoward wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it actually undermines your point. You're arguing that Twitter as it exists today is somehow inherently "democratic" and run in the public interest because some users subsidize others. And that's just incorrect; those users subsidize the others because it is in their financial interest to do so. They want their ads to show where the eyeballs are, that's all. If the economics changed and it suddenly became more at…

You didn't understand my point. The advertisers are not the ones who subsidize users. Users who click on ads subsidize users who don't. You are also repeating the last part of my post!

Not unless they are clicking on the ads to ensure that Twitter can make money. More likely, they're clicking because they wish the purchase the good or service the advertiser is offering. Consumption is not subsidy. You might as well argue that the chattering masses are subsidizing a viral marketing platform for the consumer goods sector.

Re: The Socialist Republic of Twitter

#15

Post by matthewowen » Thu, Aug 23, 2012, 10:00 PM UTC

diego wrote: post #7

smacktoward wrote: post #5

Socialism isn't what you appear to think it is. A privately owned company that provides services subsidized by one group of customers to others for free isn't "socialist" in any meaningful sense. It's still privately owned, it's still driven by profit, there's still money changing hands. It's funded by capitalists who put money in with the hope of seeing a return on their investment. Etc. It's not impossible to imagi…

It's not meant to be taken literally. I'm using a figure of speech called hyperbole to drive a point.

You aren't using hyperbole. You're just using language incorrectly. Socialism isn't Twitter's practices taken to extremes - it's something wholly different.