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

Americans Own Less Stuff, and That’s Reason to Be Nervous

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

431–440 of 566 posts

Re: Americans Own Less Stuff, and That’s Reason to Be Nervous

#431

Post by nybble41 »

s73v3r_ wrote: post #392
pathseeker wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, that's how network effects work. The connectivity provides value. Telephone networks were also useless without the people to call. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect A bunch of people independently operating their cars to give rides with no common means to find them, schedule them, and pay them makes them almost completely useless. The network is the only thing making them useful to consumers. It's lik…

"The network is the only thing making them useful to consumers." No, this statement is entirely and purely false. The reason the network has value is because there are people on the network doing the work. If no one was doing the work, the network would be worthless. Stop falling into the trap of believing that the people actually doing the labor are not contributing, or do not have value.

"Stop falling into the trap of believing that the people actually doing the labor are not contributing, or do not have value."

That is not what pathseeker said. You said (and pathseeker agreed) that the network is only valuable because there are people in it to do the labor. Pathseeker also said that having people willing and able to do the work is only valuable with a network to organize them and connect them to the people who need work done. You're both right. The people and the network are both contributing, and they both have value. Neither would be valuable on its own.

Re: Americans Own Less Stuff, and That’s Reason to Be Nervous

#432

Post by apozem »

downrightmike wrote: post #193
apozem wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is absolutely the end goal of all these network-effect companies. Uber wants to be a monopoly on transportation, Google a monopoly on search, Spotify a monopoly on music consumption, etc.

*Google a monopoly on advertising

I'd say they have it well split with Facebook at the moment, but yeah, a duopoly isn't much better.

Re: Americans Own Less Stuff, and That’s Reason to Be Nervous

#433

Post by taneq »

lsmarigo wrote: post #390
qubex wrote: post #381

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with this “virtual community” interpretation is that it alters both people’s perception of prevailing opinions and skews their perception of how and whether they ‘need’ to find compromises with people they actually share space with. Somebody can find a ‘community’ online with whom to share very unconventional views and come away with the perception that this unconventional view is actually widespread desp…

this is at the core of why the fabric of our society is unraveling. We're heading deeper in this direction with no signs of slowing down. Algorithms that optimize for engagement metrics amplify this. why would anyone entertain let alone engage opposing viewpoints when it's much more comfortable to just retreat to a place with common similar beliefs. Make no mistake Hn is an echo chamber as well.

Especially when 'engagement-optimising' algorithms realise that the best way to get views is to fan a flamewar by tossing pro-Skub and anti-Skub zealots into a virtual ant-jar and shaking it.

Re: Americans Own Less Stuff, and That’s Reason to Be Nervous

#434

Post by mehrdadn »

This is insightful. I want to also mention that it's not just ownership of property that's disappearing, though: the concept of owning wealth also seems to be disappearing. So much -- including the nation's foundation now -- is based on loans, credit, and in general paying with money that you don't actually have. It seems like an entirely different financial/economic model from the one we mentally have in mind, and that seems like another reason to be nervous -- I don't know enough to know if it can be sustainable.

Re: Americans Own Less Stuff, and That’s Reason to Be Nervous

#435

Post by roenxi »

lsmarigo wrote: post #390
qubex wrote: post #381

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with this “virtual community” interpretation is that it alters both people’s perception of prevailing opinions and skews their perception of how and whether they ‘need’ to find compromises with people they actually share space with. Somebody can find a ‘community’ online with whom to share very unconventional views and come away with the perception that this unconventional view is actually widespread desp…

this is at the core of why the fabric of our society is unraveling. We're heading deeper in this direction with no signs of slowing down. Algorithms that optimize for engagement metrics amplify this. why would anyone entertain let alone engage opposing viewpoints when it's much more comfortable to just retreat to a place with common similar beliefs. Make no mistake Hn is an echo chamber as well.

I'm not saying I have any evidence otherwise, but do you have a source for that?

I mean, "more comfortable to just retreat to a place with common similar beliefs" is a good theory. But it is hardly the only one I can think of. Off the top of my head I also have:

1) Wealth is being eroded by the response to the '08 crisis leaving known-bad cultures to thrive in the lending industry. Social fabric starts to unravel due to lack of wealth creation.

2) Academics have had a long history of being in tension with democratic ideals. Famously, right when they came up with the idea of 'academies' Socrates was executed by a jury trial. More recently, communism had strong support in academic circles of Europe. We've massively increased the exposure of people to the university culture in the last 1-2 generations. Maybe technocrat leanings are leaking out? Technocrats don't compromise well on social issues, they believe there is a best answer.

Basically, the problem might not be algorithms and search bubbles, even though this is a forum that knows a lot about algorithms and search bubbles.

Re: Americans Own Less Stuff, and That’s Reason to Be Nervous

#436

Post by taurath »

qubex wrote: post #381
Kalium wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally, I view this as a distinct upgrade. Instead of being coerced into lots of interaction with people I may have nothing in common with except vague geographical proximity, I have the option of interacting with people who actually share my interests or concerns or hobbies. To me, this isn't isolated loners. It's the first real community I've ever known. The first one I've ever actually felt like I was a part o…

The problem with this “virtual community” interpretation is that it alters both people’s perception of prevailing opinions and skews their perception of how and whether they ‘need’ to find compromises with people they actually share space with. Somebody can find a ‘community’ online with whom to share very unconventional views and come away with the perception that this unconventional view is actually widespread desp…

I guess is the goal for everyone to join in some sort of majoritarian social contract? Being a lgbt person growing up I didn't interact in my local small community at all, because there was a damn good chance the local community would band together and mob me for being what I am. Finding a group of people I can identify with probably saved my life, literally, if not from some band of bigots than depression and suicide.

The rule that seems to be working itself out is this: people can pursue any interest they want, but we have social contracts when those interests interact with other people. Groups converge and have little friction when many people share at least some of the values, so you get things like HN, reddit, etc, but not unmoderated.

Re: Americans Own Less Stuff, and That’s Reason to Be Nervous

#437

Post by jonknee »

nigelcleland wrote: post #429
jonknee wrote: post #421

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is that what you want the future to be like? Where these movies might as well have disappeared off the face of the earth because no one can get ahold of them anymore? Because that's the direction we're starting to go in with more and more things going digital only and subscription only. Pretty much. Most of the time I am more than happy to watch something on the current rotation of Netflix/Amazon/HBO. It doesn't wo…

There is a huge network cost towards doing this. The centralised platforms by definition will push us closer towards the mean (as the mean is most profitable) at the expense of the outlier. This means that you'll have a higher quality median (note, not mean) experience at the cost of experiencing any true outliers. The best way it's been put to me is the follows: * (AI/ML/Algorithmic Recommendation) = 8/10 products y…

I guess what I'm saying is I am OK with this and vastly prefer it to collecting things in my home. I could put a ton more effort/money in and clutter my house and get some marginal more enjoyment from movies, but for me that is a losing proposition. I'd rather not buy anything or put in the time and enjoy the content less. I can definitely understand if movies are a passion this would be undesirable, but they're not a passion of mine and I really enjoy being able to outsource the hassle.

Re: Americans Own Less Stuff, and That’s Reason to Be Nervous

#438

Post by photojosh »

lsmarigo wrote: post #390
qubex wrote: post #381

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with this “virtual community” interpretation is that it alters both people’s perception of prevailing opinions and skews their perception of how and whether they ‘need’ to find compromises with people they actually share space with. Somebody can find a ‘community’ online with whom to share very unconventional views and come away with the perception that this unconventional view is actually widespread desp…

this is at the core of why the fabric of our society is unraveling. We're heading deeper in this direction with no signs of slowing down. Algorithms that optimize for engagement metrics amplify this. why would anyone entertain let alone engage opposing viewpoints when it's much more comfortable to just retreat to a place with common similar beliefs. Make no mistake Hn is an echo chamber as well.

> why would anyone entertain let alone engage opposing viewpoints when it's much more comfortable to just retreat to a place with common similar beliefs. Make no mistake Hn is an echo chamber as well.

But in the original "community", you wouldn't actually be exposed to opposing viewpoints all that often either. You actively had to seek them out too. Ancestor comment pointed out that community was required for survival. Once survival and security is guaranteed, then you can start thinking about self-actualisation, which is a different kind of community.

> when it's much more comfortable to just retreat to a place with common similar beliefs

This is an age-old argument, but taking a new form. Of course people like just doing what's comfortable; we've just replaced the 5 hours of broadcast TV a day with 5 hours of mindless social media refreshing. It's only a minority that actively seek to challenge themselves.

Re: Americans Own Less Stuff, and That’s Reason to Be Nervous

#439

Post by TulliusCicero »

wristmittens wrote: post #348
snarf21 wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a fair point but I think they are saying that if they really wanted to re-read a book, they could just rent it again. The other side of the coin is how many of the books or movies that you own have you never rewatched? What happens if you DVD stops reading? I think neither are wrong, just different. It depends on your goals.

But the point of the original article is that "just rent it again" is entirely dependent on the renting authority deciding they still want to rent it to you. If Kindle decided (or was pressured) to censor a book for whatever reason, then it has enormous ability to dictate exactly what type of information you're able to consume.

That's only true if Kindle has monopoly power over books as a whole, which is obviously not the case.

Now, services like Kindle or Steam deciding to revoke access to prior purchases is a potential Big Problem...but as of yet, it remains just that: potential. And at least in theory, there are government agencies that are charged with protecting against abusive behavior towards consumers (obviously actual results there are somewhat mixed).

Re: Americans Own Less Stuff, and That’s Reason to Be Nervous

#440

Post by eeZah7Ux »

amelius wrote: post #6

It may be better for the environment to not own stuff, but instead use services. For example, take a fridge. If I buy a fridge, the company I buy it from has an incentive to make it break in N years, so they can sell me a new one, i.e. "planned obsolescence". However, if I subscribe to a service to keep my food and beverages at a certain temperature, then the company has the incentive to make the fridge last as long…

That's a huge oversimplification. Who controls when the fridge stops working? Who has the right to end the contract and when? Who decides if the fridge has internet access or not?
Post reply on HN