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

451–460 of 566 posts

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

#451

Post by xg15 »

Kalium wrote: post #331
qubex wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I might add that Silicon Valley et al has not simply cleverly redefined the meaning of ’sharing’ to cover their rental practices, but even the meaning of community has been totally warped out of shape. A community used to be a group of geographically proximate people whose collective survival depended on getting over their sometimes conflicting mutual interests and opinions in order to survive; now we use the term ’c…

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…

I will share your opinion when we at some point have an immersive, livable virtual reality in which everyone has control over their own code.

Until that, the current virtual "communities" seem like a poor substitute for actual communities, long-term. Yes, you get to meet like-minded people (or more precisely, one aspect of the personalities of some like-minded people), however what you can actually do with them is tightly restricted to the online sphere. No common activities, no parties, no activism outside the internet, no dating. No differing viewpoints. No even knowing who you are talking with.

This seems like a poor substitute to (non-coerced) physical communities.

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

#452

Post by lsmarigo »

roenxi wrote: post #435
lsmarigo wrote: post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I have no source these are just my thoughts and observations.

You bring up very good points.

> Technocrats don't compromise well on social issues, they believe there is a best answer.

You are absolutely correct. Algorithms and search bubbles are just symptoms not the disease. Elite untouchable tech giants with no oversight molding human thought and behavior to increase their bottom line and power with a 'move fast a break things' attitude in regards to the any social or ethical implications - that's the disease.

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

#453

Post by RussianCow »

zrobotics wrote: post #291
kartan wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> “you ought to own the stuff you possess.” That is the base that Richard Stallman created for the open source movement. You should own your own hardware, and the only way of fulfilling that is to own the software that makes it run. And I also thought that this is common sense at least for the past generation of developers. I am not so sure how much the message has been lost, but it is not so strong as it used to be.

I think the current fad of everything being offered 'as a service' has changed many people's minds. Can't find a link, but I've seen people on this website claim that electron apps that are just a web page (and thus don't work offline) are better for Linux on the desktop than actual native applications. Sure, they do mean that cross-platform is essentially free, but you have to rely on someone else's computer for the…

> Can't find a link, but I've seen people on this website claim that electron apps that are just a web page (and thus don't work offline) are better for Linux on the desktop than actual native applications. Sure, they do mean that cross-platform is essentially free, but you have to rely on someone else's computer for them to work.

This is false, at least in the way you're thinking. Electron apps are written with web technologies, yes, but they generally don't load their UI via the web; all HTML/CSS/JS lives locally on your machine. I don't use the GitHub app, but if it's true that it can't commit without an internet connection, that's just bad design, as opposed to something inherent with Electron.

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

#454

Post by xg15 »

snarf21 wrote: post #341
lolsal wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I've owned VHS's, they're worthless ... > I've owned DVD's - they're worthless > I've owned Books - they're worthless I honestly find this unbelievable and amazing. You have never rewatched a video, or re-read a book? You've never lent a movie or a book to a friend? You've never used a movie or a book to job your memory and spark a conversation with someone? There is value in all of those things to me, not to menti…

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.

> 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.

...unless they somehow pissed off Amazon and lost their account. Or the publisher/auther pissed off Amazon and got taken down. Or...

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

#455

Post by Qwertie »

pytyper2 wrote: post #387
_bxg1 wrote: post #134

The article identifies some problems but totally misses their actual source. The problem isn't that we own less stuff, it's that the ownership is replaced by a dependency on a handful of corporations which we have no ability to influence or appeal to. The substitution of individual ownership for a communal one in which individuals retain a stake - a real community, or at a larger scale, a democracy - is not inherentl…

It's bad because our historical growth is based on us accumulating things using credit. Producing and consuming things is what creates job growth which sustains our growing population. Our acceptance of inflation due to said consumerism, credit, and the black hole of the federal reserve issuing new currency is what provides "new money" for investment in research. If we transition to a society where things are no long…

>If a car is not cool enough for me to want to own, why would I care to use the communal car rather than the bus? Can the auto industry survive selling 10% of the vehicles is does now?

Not every industry has to survive forever. Can the telegraph industry survive the ~0% of sales it had before? Cars just aren't that useful in densely populated areas. The US will have to move away from personal vehicle transport and to mass transport/walking/cycling.

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

#456

Post by RussianCow »

supernovae wrote: post #405
wott wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It seems we're substituting "ownership" with control. But you do not control anything any more with those companies. They can revoke your accesses, they can ban you from using their services for any reason, they can change the terms of services, the offers, the rates, whenever they wish. Unlike you, I would say you lost the control which came implicitly with ownership, and did not regain another form of control. At…

Reductio ad absurdum... Historically everything from the ownership society has died - everything. Do you still buy betamax players? lazerdisc players? minidisc or walkmans? no... When the hell have you ever been banned from netflix? If the price goes up, i'll just cancel the service. I don't "collect" netflix shows or have any desire to do anything to feel complete so a change of terms of service, rates, offers or ev…

> When the hell have you ever been banned from netflix?

Better example: It's extremely frustrating to be in the middle of an intense movie and have your internet become flaky or go out completely at that moment. On the other hand, nothing would have stopped you finishing that movie if you owned it, save perhaps a power outage.

Granted, movie watching isn't important enough for me personally that I find owning movies worth the costs, as I'm sure is the case for most people, but for some it very well might be—it just depends on your priorities. For instance, when I commuted to work (about an hour each way), I didn't use Spotify because I didn't want my music listening on the train to be at the mercy of my mobile connection.

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

#457

Post by xg15 »

TulliusCicero wrote: post #439
wristmittens wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Well, the whole point of the article is to observe a trend. None of this is a big problem right now.

But economic incentives might push the renting model to become the main - or even only - model to use many goods and services in the future. Similarly, trends about the number of service providers seem to point towards consolidation as well.

So if those trends hold true, we might at some point have Megacorp Inc. offering Living-As-A-Service. And then we would have a problem.

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

#458

Post by lsmarigo »

taurath wrote: post #444
lsmarigo wrote: post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Tribalism has been a thing as long as human history has existed and 2 groups of apes both wanted the same banana tree. We have many ways of resolving inter-tribal conflicts, but some just aren't well translated to the internet - primarily because of the consequence free nature of throwing rocks at other tribes. This is changing though - people are moving to more, not less, moderated spaces and communities online. Ano…

> The main argument seems to be that because we're not having forced arguments and considerations in meatspace, mano-a-mano, we're not challenged enough.

In meatspace social pressure exists unlike on the internet. An example is racist/misogynist jokes are not acceptable in most IRL contexts (especially those that are being logged/recorded permanently as is the case on the majority of the modern web) whereas on the internet it's not only discouraged but it's actually a great way to build a following quickly.

The internet is fundamentally changing how we communicate, ingest news, and share information.

The argument is that before safe spaces and echo chambers online, individuals that aim to engage general public with their message in any meaningful context are forced to compromise their extreme views. In my view Alex Jones wouldn't be a nationally recognized name before the internet, at best he'd be able to get influence over 30 or so of his local conspiracy theorists. No publication would print his views, because of how large a portion of the population they would alienate and anger. I'd argue this pressure is a net positive and having it removed online is leading us down a dark path.

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

#459

Post by angersock »

taurath wrote: post #436
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…

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 suicid…

> 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.

Alternately, by removing yourself from your community you failed to give them examples that would've broadened their horizons.

Like, this is one form of problem with today's filter bubbles--they help polarize communities by preventing the natural mechanisms of discovery and compromise that are required for groups of humans to coexist in meatspace.

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

#460

Post by taurath »

lsmarigo wrote: post #458
taurath wrote: post #444

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tribalism has been a thing as long as human history has existed and 2 groups of apes both wanted the same banana tree. We have many ways of resolving inter-tribal conflicts, but some just aren't well translated to the internet - primarily because of the consequence free nature of throwing rocks at other tribes. This is changing though - people are moving to more, not less, moderated spaces and communities online. Ano…

> The main argument seems to be that because we're not having forced arguments and considerations in meatspace, mano-a-mano, we're not challenged enough. In meatspace social pressure exists unlike on the internet. An example is racist/misogynist jokes are not acceptable in most IRL contexts (especially those that are being logged/recorded permanently as is the case on the majority of the modern web) whereas on the in…

> In meatspace social pressure exists unlike on the internet.

That is my point and what is changing, as people figure out how to interact in the platform. In Oklahoma yesterday nearly all local news outlets reported on a group of adults threatening violence (or to have their children/grandchildren commit violence) on a 12 year old transgender girl. They did that on Facebook, and their names are out there along with their identities. People are moving towards more identifiable or at least moderated spaces, because frankly most people don’t want to interact on a platform that’s main feature is they allow anyone to say anything with no consequences.

Alex Jones may not exist if it weren’t for the internet, but the backlash to views like his is real as public spaces on the internet figure out how to deal with bad actors.

Post reply on HN