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

Manifestos and Monopolies

stratechery.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 47 posts

Re: Manifestos and Monopolies

#21

Post by RodericDay »

monkbent wrote: post #11
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's an articulation of the general versus the specific. He's saying the general idea underpinning Zuckerberg's manifesto is concerning. He's just personally okay given it's specifically Zuckerberg manning the helm. (Separately, he says Facebook is in a good economic position. That's a separate train of thought from the manifesto discussion.)

I have no idea how you guys are getting the impression I'm ok with Zuckerberg's stated goals here. I think I was pretty clear on that point at least!

Are you the author? I'm not saying you're ok with his goals. I'm saying that you seem to be very concerned with not coming off as "one of those anti-FB people", to the degree that it weakens the momentum of your writing a lot.

I'm sure other people really like it.

Re: Manifestos and Monopolies

#22

Post by avn2109 »

TimJYoung wrote: post #12

The author lost me here: "it is a reflection of the fundamental reality that the supply of content (and increasingly goods) is infinite, and thus worthless" No, the supply of worthless content is infinite. The supply of interesting content provided by professionals with the backgrounds necessary to provide such content is not. This is why you still see the majority of journalistic content provided by a small number o…

The NYT is already longer than anyone has time to read daily, even retired people. Ditto WSJ etc. There are more good movies than you could ever watch. Too many really good TV shows to keep up with.

By "infinite," the OP really means "vastly overwhelmingly larger than demand." Of course there's also plenty of dreck, but that's not the article's point.

Re: Manifestos and Monopolies

#23

Post by oooglaaa »

Demoneeri wrote: post #19
oooglaaa wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly this. My facebook newsfeed is full of worthless content, which, though once fun and interesting is now a commodity (cat videos, for example) As someone in my mid twenties, I spend far more time on instagram and snapchat than on facebook. If facebook was to disappear tomorrow, it'd probably be okay with me. Imagine for a second if Facebook hadn't acquired Instagram. Attention shifts very quickly in the digital…

If your Facebook feed is worthless, it's your fault. Either you have nobody you care about or you like worthless stuff. I'm connected with family and friends, I'm following interesting people and liked interesting pages. My newsfeed is full of great content, from people I care about or page with content I want to read/watch.

Perhaps worthless is extreme. But its not nearly as interesting as insta/snap

Re: Manifestos and Monopolies

#24

Post by confounded »

TimJYoung wrote: post #12

The author lost me here: "it is a reflection of the fundamental reality that the supply of content (and increasingly goods) is infinite, and thus worthless" No, the supply of worthless content is infinite. The supply of interesting content provided by professionals with the backgrounds necessary to provide such content is not. This is why you still see the majority of journalistic content provided by a small number o…

There is an argument that automation, and the fact that increasingly the goods we desire are digital, means that the marginal reproduction costs of many goods are trending towards zero (with obvious exceptions, like housing).

Without effective regulation, this puts all the power in the hands of naturally monopolistic distribution platforms.

For example, the only reason why an infinitely reproducible MP3 costs $0.99 is because Apple's lawyers say it does, Facebook get to decide the cost in digital-autonomy for you to speak to your aunt.

Over the last few years this seems to have drifted from academic-Marxian/airport-business-book/TED lore to a motivation for seriously exploring policies like UBI (including by Y Combinator).

Re: Manifestos and Monopolies

#25

Post by abannin »

TimJYoung wrote: post #12

The author lost me here: "it is a reflection of the fundamental reality that the supply of content (and increasingly goods) is infinite, and thus worthless" No, the supply of worthless content is infinite. The supply of interesting content provided by professionals with the backgrounds necessary to provide such content is not. This is why you still see the majority of journalistic content provided by a small number o…

Thompson's point here isn't about the content itself, but rather the supply chain for the content. Because the internet effectively provides 'infinite' distribution, the traditional models of controlling distribution are worthless. This is a very consistent theme in his writings.

Consider that both the worthless and valuable content that you've defined use the same methods for distribution; Facebook, Twitter, Google, etc.

Re: Manifestos and Monopolies

#26

Post by TimJYoung »

abannin wrote: post #25
TimJYoung wrote: post #12

The author lost me here: "it is a reflection of the fundamental reality that the supply of content (and increasingly goods) is infinite, and thus worthless" No, the supply of worthless content is infinite. The supply of interesting content provided by professionals with the backgrounds necessary to provide such content is not. This is why you still see the majority of journalistic content provided by a small number o…

Thompson's point here isn't about the content itself, but rather the supply chain for the content. Because the internet effectively provides 'infinite' distribution, the traditional models of controlling distribution are worthless. This is a very consistent theme in his writings. Consider that both the worthless and valuable content that you've defined use the same methods for distribution; Facebook, Twitter, Google,…

Yes, but production distribution. It still costs money to produce something of value, whether it's an article in a magazine or an album. The fact that it costs virtually nothing to reproduce an album or distribute it digitally does not negate the investment it took to produce it. And the fact remains that Facebook and Google, among many others, profited handsomely from this confusion.

Re: Manifestos and Monopolies

#27

Post by confounded »

TimJYoung wrote: post #26
abannin wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thompson's point here isn't about the content itself, but rather the supply chain for the content. Because the internet effectively provides 'infinite' distribution, the traditional models of controlling distribution are worthless. This is a very consistent theme in his writings. Consider that both the worthless and valuable content that you've defined use the same methods for distribution; Facebook, Twitter, Google,…

Yes, but production distribution. It still costs money to produce something of value, whether it's an article in a magazine or an album. The fact that it costs virtually nothing to reproduce an album or distribute it digitally does not negate the investment it took to produce it. And the fact remains that Facebook and Google, among many others, profited handsomely from this confusion.

> It still costs money to produce something of value

It costs rapidly decreasing amounts to produce something of value.

If you want a few stabs from a violin in your song, you rarely need to hire a concert violinist these days, thanks to recordings and software-synthesizers based on infinitely reproducible code and data.

Re: Manifestos and Monopolies

#28

Post by TimJYoung »

erikpukinskis wrote: post #18
TimJYoung wrote: post #12

The author lost me here: "it is a reflection of the fundamental reality that the supply of content (and increasingly goods) is infinite, and thus worthless" No, the supply of worthless content is infinite. The supply of interesting content provided by professionals with the backgrounds necessary to provide such content is not. This is why you still see the majority of journalistic content provided by a small number o…

> you still see the majority of journalistic content provided by a small number of organizations Do I? Or do I see major stories broken by a larger and larger number of small organizations? I legitimately don't know. Both stories sound true to me. What makes you believe yours?

The fact that the NYT is aggregated here, and not "My News Blog for My Hometown".

Re: Manifestos and Monopolies

#29

Post by TimJYoung »

confounded wrote: post #27
TimJYoung wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but production distribution. It still costs money to produce something of value, whether it's an article in a magazine or an album. The fact that it costs virtually nothing to reproduce an album or distribute it digitally does not negate the investment it took to produce it. And the fact remains that Facebook and Google, among many others, profited handsomely from this confusion.

> It still costs money to produce something of value It costs rapidly decreasing amounts to produce something of value. If you want a few stabs from a violin in your song, you rarely need to hire a concert violinist these days, thanks to recordings and software-synthesizers based on infinitely reproducible code and data.

Absolutely, but that doesn't mean that it's still easy to produce the final work. If anyone can do it, then it's obviously not valuable.

Take "Stranger Things" on Netflix, for example. I normally hate sci-fi, but this was one heck of a great season 1 for a series. Did it take a lot less in terms of technical know-how/costs to produce than it would have taken in the 80's ? Sure, no doubt. But, it still is a very unique cultural work that is definitely more valuable than something created by another group of people with access to the exact same technology, but producing something of lesser value. The secret sauce is the people involved and their life experiences, knowledge, and expertise, none of which are "free".

Re: Manifestos and Monopolies

#30

Post by abannin »

TimJYoung wrote: post #26
abannin wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thompson's point here isn't about the content itself, but rather the supply chain for the content. Because the internet effectively provides 'infinite' distribution, the traditional models of controlling distribution are worthless. This is a very consistent theme in his writings. Consider that both the worthless and valuable content that you've defined use the same methods for distribution; Facebook, Twitter, Google,…

Yes, but production distribution. It still costs money to produce something of value, whether it's an article in a magazine or an album. The fact that it costs virtually nothing to reproduce an album or distribute it digitally does not negate the investment it took to produce it. And the fact remains that Facebook and Google, among many others, profited handsomely from this confusion.

> Yes, but production distribution

Compare with the second paragraph: "The reality is that Facebook is one of the most powerful companies the tech industry — and arguably, the world — has ever seen. True, everything posted on Facebook is put there for free, either by individuals or professional content creators; and true, Facebook isn’t really irreplaceable when it comes to the generation of economic value; and it is also true that there are all kinds of alternatives when it comes to communication. However, to take these truths as evidence that Facebook is fragile requires a view of the world that is increasingly archaic."

FB doesn't pay for the content, which is a major advantage over traditional companies that do both creation and distribution (newspapers) or ones where content is licensed somehow (television, music labels). FB is agnostic to the costs of creating the content, but their networks necessitate producers to user their platform.

Post reply on HN