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

Silicon Valley Is Not Your Friend

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 221 posts

Re: Silicon Valley Is Not Your Friend

#111

Post by m3rc »

humanrebar wrote: post #57
KirinDave wrote: post #6

Let's be selfish for a moment. Mandating decentralization of these services is probably a net good not only for society (and us, because we'll be the ones employed to do it) by way of distributing more wealth, opportunity and responsibilities to more people. But it'll also be good from a technical standpoint. We're in desperate need of a wake-up call about the centralized and often legacy, government mandated insecur…

I agree, but I'm also concerned that decentralization could increase the surface area exposed to attack.

How?

Re: Silicon Valley Is Not Your Friend

#112

Post by bogomipz »

justinpaulson wrote: post #44
dclowd9901 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is my experience as well. While my family are enjoying their Amazon Dots and "Hey Siri" and everything else, I'm constantly reminding them of how evil these companies are, and how they're constantly consuming and eating information, while Uncle Sam syphons every drip of internet off the pipeline. Convenience, in my mind, has never been worth the price of losing anonymity.

I do not think anonymity == privacy. They are two different things. It is one thing to maintain privacy and want to keep your actions and preferences private from the outside, but anonymity is more about making public statements and maintaining an anonymous persona. I would say anonymity in making public statements has greatly increased with the rise of the internet, while privacy has diminished. In fact, a lot of th…

>" I would say anonymity in making public statements has greatly increased with the rise of the internet, while privacy has diminished."

The trend has been for companies such as FB, Google, LinkedIn, etc to enforce "real name policies." And most commenter systems on large media sites want you you to login using a Google+ or Facebook account. I would say anonymity has seen a fast and steady decline.

Re: Silicon Valley Is Not Your Friend

#113

Post by alexasmyths »

dasil003 wrote: post #100
alexasmyths wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The press swings memes in a pendulum. They hype, they hate, they hype, they hate. Right now, it seems their getting on finger wagging band wagon. When in 'hype' mode - the littlest, most innocuous thing is 'game changing'. When in 'hate mode' - the littlest, most incidental act is 'an example of the entire failure of the Valley'. Hype: Google Glasses 'will change how we interact as people' Hate: 'An Uber rider refuse…

The only problem with your theory is that The Media is not a monolithic entity.

It's definitely not 'my' theory.

Major outlets are deeply intertwined and take cues from one another as to 'what the story of the hour' is.

All of the 'grievances' purported by the press against SV today, could have been made 10 years ago - but they weren't. Why not?

Andrew Keen at TechCrunch, or maybe the cynical guys at TheRegister were the only ones brave enough to say anything a while back. (Granted, Keen might be a cynic at heart :) ).

Re: Silicon Valley Is Not Your Friend

#114

Post by bogomipz »

darethas wrote: post #64
dclowd9901 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not tweeting (much), not instagramming (much), not posting on Facebook (much), etc. I don't see anonymity as a binary; more of a spectrum (think something that stretches between a hermit and a celebrity). Obviously as a human existing into some manner of time with family and friends and coworkers, I'm _known_ by those who could/should, but I don't need Amazon parsing conversations in my kitchen.

Right, but do you hang out with people around you that tweet, Instagram, and post on Facebook? Have you ever had dinner with friends and they have an Echo/Dot/Home/"Smart" TV? They can infer where you are based on being around others that use these services.

I understand about being tagged in a photo and a social media site inferring where I am but can you explain how this happens with a friend's "Echo/Dot/Home/"Smart" TV"?

Re: Silicon Valley Is Not Your Friend

#115

Post by stevenwoo »

free_everybody wrote: post #96

This article begs the question: Is it possible to maintain a cultural sense of ethics in any highly profitable corporation? Are there any examples in history of notably ethical corporations that changed the world?

How big and how much change? There's Ben and Jerry's and Newman's Own, some people might say Costco.

Re: Silicon Valley Is Not Your Friend

#116

Post by pascalxus »

I think 2017 is the year we have a turning point in the media's opinion of Silicon valley. I don't remember seeing this much SV bashing in the last 10 years. I think it has less to do with what SV is doing precisely: it's more about the threat of automation and the consolidation of power in the hands of a few companies.

Pieces like this, so enfused with bitterness show a fundamental lack of understanding of how capitalism works, or at least a willful ignorance: "Growth becomes the overriding motivation". Of course is the overriding motiviation - this is how capitalism works.

It reflects poorly on the New York times. I expected better more balanced journalism from them.

However, I do agree with their argument about breaking up giants. There is some merit to this argument and much could be gained from greater competition.

Re: Silicon Valley Is Not Your Friend

#117

Post by r00fus »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #105
r00fus wrote: post #102

Skepticism is a good thing, including while consuming this anti-valley diatribe. I fear what SV is becoming, but this article says nothing of previous history of other such revolutionary shifts like with industrial revolution, petroleum economy. Maybe SV has a feel-good image because in comparison to other mature consumer industries (think TV/Cable or Automobiles) it's comparatively less full of bullshit.

> this article says nothing of previous history of other such revolutionary shifts like with industrial revolution, petroleum economy Each of those shifts resulted in their industries being massively regulated, in respect of their effects on labor and the environment, respectively. The article calls, if somewhat indirectly, for the similar regulation of tech.

That regulation didn't happen for years or decades after the colossal impacts those revolutions had on society/world.

Not bringing up historical context only weakens the article's argument, IMHO.

Re: Silicon Valley Is Not Your Friend

#118

Post by gm-conspiracy »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #62

I wonder how "Wall Street is not your friend" would play in the NY Times. I mean I get it, greed and flexible morality result in exploitation of the masses, but it is not unique to tech. During the dot.com boom it was pretty clear that there were people here in the Bay Area whose only goal was to sell some investors on an idea, pump it up, take it public on a story, pocket some big profits and then blow town. My frie…

I highly recommend the book "Exit Strategy" by Douglas Rushkoff.

Although it is fiction, it is an entertaining read of the attitude you describe during the dot.com boom.

I remember reading it a chapter at a time, as it was released, I think weekly, on yil.com.

Re: Silicon Valley Is Not Your Friend

#119

Post by gm-conspiracy »

tannhauser23 wrote: post #90
engagement wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wall Street does not claim to improve the world. Zuckerberg for example claims that he has some goal of changing the world for the better. Note, I think this is all a little silly when it clearly comes down to rich individuals that define most of the giving. Gates couldn’t have done so much without microsoft.

Dude, the head of Goldman Sachs said he'a doing God's work: https://dealbook.nytimes.com/2009/11/09/goldman-chief-says-h...

Calvanism?

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

Re: Silicon Valley Is Not Your Friend

#120

Post by TeMPOraL »

Fnoord wrote: post #77
hprotagonist wrote: post #2

I grew up reading 2600 and the jargon file and early slashdot, and hanging out on freenode and usenet, so i've been indoctrinated in this way of thinking this way for 20 years. In my experience, the people who built the net are among its sharpest and most vocal critics, and there's some cause for that. I'm not sure what the implications of everyone else thinking this way will be.

You also grew up reading Snow Crash wink Some things just don't make sense to me. Why are the default settings for something like Facebook public? Why not friends by default?

> Some things just don't make sense to me. Why are the default settings for something like Facebook public? Why not friends by default?

They are not, AFAIK. I mean, Facebook keeps nagging me to make my posts private every other week, even though I explicitly want to post publicly.

Facebook was a much nicer place back when they actually were public-by-default. It felt more social. Now it's just a crossover between Twitter and a rolodex.

Post reply on HN