Live data from Hacker News

The User Always Loses

thenation.com

71–80 of 156 posts

Re: The User Always Loses

#71
post #62

>When users are scapegoated, Silicon Valley is left off the hook Is this really the dominant narrative? Are there lots of thinkpieces going around about how fair and kind Silicon Valley is, if only it weren't for all those mean people using their services? Maybe it is so obvious that it doesn't need to be said, but when comparing the early internet to the current internet, we cannot let the users off the hook! The fu…

> These were interesting, educated, intelligent, thoughtful and passionate people

> there is really an underlying snobbery about it

These contrast very interestingly, but I think it's missing an important point. The early internet was characterized by complete freedom of association. You could talk about whatever, with whomever. If enough people shared an interest, a community could form.

The problem with the modern internet isn't that the filthy plebs are using it - it's that all of the content suggestion algorithms, clickbait articles, and advertising are designed for maximum engagement. It's no longer what groups of "interesting, educated, intelligent, thoughtful and passionate people" collectively put forward, without an ulterior financial incentive, that determines what content people see. I think that's the ultimate issue - it's not that low quality content proliferates, it's that there are few if any ways of finding high-quality content among all the crap.

It's one of the main reasons I read Hacker News - it's an excellent content filter.

Re: The User Always Loses

#73

The VC model for funding technology is the root cause of user hostile technology. The pressure of investments that expect high returns is a feature/bug that determines the course these companies are likely to take. It creates the need to occasionally tade end-user freedoms for opportunities to "capture value". Venture Capital also imports theories of scarcity and under-production that our entire open-source ecosystem…

This may not be the best forum for an unbiased discussion of the merits of venture capital =p

Re: The User Always Loses

#74

The VC model for funding technology is the root cause of user hostile technology. The pressure of investments that expect high returns is a feature/bug that determines the course these companies are likely to take. It creates the need to occasionally tade end-user freedoms for opportunities to "capture value". Venture Capital also imports theories of scarcity and under-production that our entire open-source ecosystem…

Here's a perhaps weird take that I'm not convinced of myself, but it's interesting food for thought. Maybe the big companies pay so well the floor is just that high.

Let's say you, a hopeful founder, could get $0.5M/yr at a BigCo. Instead you're going to start a company where you'll earn maybe $0.15M/yr for a decade then either get a payout (10%) or fail (90%). To make them even in expectation after that decade, you need $5M = $1.5M + 10% * payout, so payout = $35M. Maybe you and your cofounder each have 25% (?) of the company at that point , so the valuation needs to be 4x that $35M, so $140M.

To take a paycut from a really good alternative, you need a giant incentive. Maybe that just means that if you would start a business that'll "only" make you $0.5-1M/year if you succeed, then in solely a financial perspective, you should just join a BigCo.

Re: The User Always Loses

#75
post #71
post #62

>When users are scapegoated, Silicon Valley is left off the hook Is this really the dominant narrative? Are there lots of thinkpieces going around about how fair and kind Silicon Valley is, if only it weren't for all those mean people using their services? Maybe it is so obvious that it doesn't need to be said, but when comparing the early internet to the current internet, we cannot let the users off the hook! The fu…

> These were interesting, educated, intelligent, thoughtful and passionate people > there is really an underlying snobbery about it These contrast very interestingly, but I think it's missing an important point. The early internet was characterized by complete freedom of association. You could talk about whatever, with whomever. If enough people shared an interest, a community could form. The problem with the modern…

Precisely. Call me elitist all day long -- get those filthy plebs out of my spaces!

Re: The User Always Loses

#76
post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The real root cause of "user hostility" is that companies are run by humans and humans are self-serving and want to make more money. At least for software, we know of one solution that works: free (as in speech) software. Still made by humans, but usually without the self-serving greed, and if any of that does turn up, you never lose access to the last-good version and source, in case you or someone else wants to f…

That's not sustainable. Most OSS nowadays is produced by big companies looking at OSS as a way to retain or capture more engineering talent. It somehow works for small individuals because having a nice github can be useful to get a job or bypass the ridiculous interviewing process of the day. A few heroes barely live off donations from wealthy companies and patreons, others sell development courses on the side. The r…

The parent comment was specifically talking about free software, not open source software. The latter is commonly produced by large companies, but the former is much rarer.

Re: The User Always Loses

#77

The VC model for funding technology is the root cause of user hostile technology. The pressure of investments that expect high returns is a feature/bug that determines the course these companies are likely to take. It creates the need to occasionally tade end-user freedoms for opportunities to "capture value". Venture Capital also imports theories of scarcity and under-production that our entire open-source ecosystem…

The open source ecosystem, being primarily about source code, doesn't have any particular answer for how to charge for hardware or for services. Sometimes you get free hosting, but the organization will be making money another way.

Re: The User Always Loses

#78
post #24
post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not only is myopic and US-centered, it's just plain non-factual, LiveJournal really took off pre-9/11. Around 2000-2001 literally everyone in my friend group were on LJ (except me), and not just passively/occasionally - regular active users and always talking about LJ stuff IRL. Even people who didn't have a computer at home! It seemed like it was just as much a social network as it was a publishing platform. Accordi…

Maybe vaguely referring to Salam Pax. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salam_Pax Iraqi blogger.

The claim was not "there was several popular blogs that dealt with the topic of the Iraq War." The quote in full

>Why did blogging take off as a shared response to the US invasion of Iraq? (When “the Internet became an ideal valve to release opinions,” she writes, “who didn’t have an opinion on the Iraq war?”)

Basically claiming that blogging became popular because everyone wanted to share their opinion on the Iraq War. That's just not factual and, quite frankly, ridiculous.

Re: The User Always Loses

#79
post #46
post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The VC model for funding technology is the root cause of user hostile technology. The pressure of investments that expect high returns [...] VCs are not the root cause. You're not looking hard enough for counterexamples . Examples of software companies that didn't take VC money that many consider to be "user hostile" are: - Intuit -- see 1-star reviews on Amazon of annual Quicken releases and forced upgrades of bugg…

> The real root cause of "user hostility" is that companies are run by humans and humans are self-serving and want to make more money. At least for software, we know of one solution that works: free (as in speech) software. Still made by humans, but usually without the self-serving greed, and if any of that does turn up, you never lose access to the last-good version and source, in case you or someone else wants to f…

> At least for software, we know of one solution that works: free (as in speech) software. Still made by humans, but usually without the self-serving greed

Sorry, but this is laughable. Instead of self-serving greed, you have self-serving "what interests the person writing it." That leaves us with open source software that has horrible user interfaces and is every bit as user-hostile as for-pay software. (For example, see the recent arguments about git's UI in this thread[0].)

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24374268

Re: The User Always Loses

#80

The VC model for funding technology is the root cause of user hostile technology. The pressure of investments that expect high returns is a feature/bug that determines the course these companies are likely to take. It creates the need to occasionally tade end-user freedoms for opportunities to "capture value". Venture Capital also imports theories of scarcity and under-production that our entire open-source ecosystem…

Can we not just say it's greed? "Some people are greedy" and leave it at that? In a sufficiently small and self-governing community, that kind of asshole would be sanctioned, exiled or killed. In a large industrialized society that can't reach any consensus whatsoever on any issue except that economic growth is essential, and that makes that growth its sole unassailable objective, you will get user-hostile software, not to mention user-hostile police, user-hostile employers, user-hostile government, medicine, education, you name it.
Post reply on HN