Naval Ravikant: “The Internet lowers the returns to distributing facts”
1–10 of 63 posts
Re: Naval Ravikant: “The Internet lowers the returns to distributing facts”
#2"Want to escape? Avoid Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat. Avoid venues and media built around group signaling and conspicuous consumption."
Ironically, this only works well if ~everyone does it; if ~nobody does, it isolates those who do.
Re: Naval Ravikant: “The Internet lowers the returns to distributing facts”
#3I see this as more of a cost / benefit thing.
Finding and distributing facts has a lower cost / benefit than finding and distributing opinions.
I feel this similarly for constructive debate online. The cost of creating constructive comments is much more than the cost of creative "destructive" (not sure it's the right word) comments. So more comments are "destructive" than constructive.
Unless the value of constructive comments is larger than the perceived cost (hn might be an example?).
Re: Naval Ravikant: “The Internet lowers the returns to distributing facts”
#4"Want to escape? Avoid Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat. Avoid venues and media built around group signaling and conspicuous consumption." Ironically, this only works well if ~everyone does it; if ~nobody does, it isolates those who do.
I found more irony in that it was posted on twitter.
Re: Naval Ravikant: “The Internet lowers the returns to distributing facts”
#5I see this as more of a cost / benefit thing. Finding and distributing facts has a lower cost / benefit than finding and distributing opinions. I feel this similarly for constructive debate online. The cost of creating constructive comments is much more than the cost of creative "destructive" (not sure it's the right word) comments. So more comments are "destructive" than constructive. Unless the value of constructiv…
>So more comments are "destructive" than constructive.
Tell me about it! It’s gotten so bad that many times I would respond to someone’s comment to expand on what they’re saying or provide context for readers who might not have it and they will reply back to me with something like “I already know this. That’s what I was talking about.”
I know that’s what you were talking about! I’m just further reinforcing what you were trying to say! I think I probably fall into this sometimes myself. Online comments are just so reflexively argumentative sometimes it's hard to switch gears into discussing things.
Re: Naval Ravikant: “The Internet lowers the returns to distributing facts”
#6"Want to escape? Avoid Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat. Avoid venues and media built around group signaling and conspicuous consumption." Ironically, this only works well if ~everyone does it; if ~nobody does, it isolates those who do.
I found more irony in that it was posted on twitter.
I agree to almost everything he said and I am also avoiding all the social media. It's surprising that he didn't use his blog to share, instead a social media. He has intentionally not mentioned Twitter. Was/ Is he an investor in Twitter?
Re: Naval Ravikant: “The Internet lowers the returns to distributing facts”
#7Earlier quoted context omitted.
I found more irony in that it was posted on twitter.
I agree to almost everything he said and I am also avoiding all the social media. It's surprising that he didn't use his blog to share, instead a social media. He has intentionally not mentioned Twitter. Was/ Is he an investor in Twitter?
Because the unfortunate and harsh truth is that if he had posted it on his blog, hardly anyone would have read it.
Re: Naval Ravikant: “The Internet lowers the returns to distributing facts”
#8It's amazing how much the end-user cost of facts has dropped. I used to ride my bike across town to a library and spend an hour finding a fact. Now I can have them on my screen in seconds.
One might have thought that as the cost of obtaining facts dropped by 100x, people would consume higher-quality facts. But consuming higher-quality facts requires more effort, so in the end people consume more low-quality facts, like listicles of celeb gossip.
As a thought experiment, what is the cost per-fact that would make people consume the maximum quantity of high-quality facts? Too high and they consume less facts overall. Too low and they consume crap.
Re: Naval Ravikant: “The Internet lowers the returns to distributing facts”
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree to almost everything he said and I am also avoiding all the social media. It's surprising that he didn't use his blog to share, instead a social media. He has intentionally not mentioned Twitter. Was/ Is he an investor in Twitter?
Because the unfortunate and harsh truth is that if he had posted it on his blog, hardly anyone would have read it.
[deleted]
Re: Naval Ravikant: “The Internet lowers the returns to distributing facts”
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
I found more irony in that it was posted on twitter.
I agree to almost everything he said and I am also avoiding all the social media. It's surprising that he didn't use his blog to share, instead a social media. He has intentionally not mentioned Twitter. Was/ Is he an investor in Twitter?
Yes, he is/was an investor in Twitter (according to his AngelList profile).
Although, I find Twitter the simplest social media platform to control the information stream that you consume. Actually, because of that, it is the only social media site that I usually visit.