It's a book promotion, but Scott G talks about content towards the end which hits close to home. All the top 4 companies have mostly sacrificed control over content in exchange for scale and have pretty much optimized for "distraction content". Because why care about quality content if the users are telling you what they would like to purchase with the least amount of friction? It matters because this concentrates wealth with a few, turns people into mindless consumers.. well, capitalism stuff.
It's a very weird dichotomy because capitalism absolutely encourages innovation and entrepreneurship. Consumerism is great for progress because people's willingness to purchase something is higher in consumer economies, which is ultimately great for entrepreneurs because their customers or users expect lesser value for their dollar as opposed to most other economies. This is a very important distinction and a core reason why america is a hotbed for innovation.
Question is - is this at all possible without making people dumber?
Question is - is this at all possible without making people dumber?
Who says consumerism is making people dumber? I don't buy that at all. In fact I don't think the article made a case for any negative aspects of wealth concentration or sacrificing control over content. The only worrying prediction was that the EU would start ramping up their fines, but Europe feeding parasitically off our freedom is par for the course anyway.
This author is just the worst kind of person. Sitting on the sidelines, peddling his baseless negativity and taking all the value created by the tech sector for granted. It's easy enough to just ignore people like him but if they're successful in stirring up enough fear and resentment they can actually alter public sentiment which in the worst cases can result in public officials stepping in to capitalize on voters emotions. The last thing I want is for the government to step in and start fucking up everything that is awesome about Amazon. Everyone should read up on the US vs Microsoft case to see just what a joke these anti-trust laws are and what it looks like when the government tries to go after a tech company that they feel has gotten too big.
I agree that the premise of the book is garbage, the entire article is BS but yet it made it to hacker news on that day - which is bad. Right at the end though, he talks about how control over content has been ceded for scale and this is certainly not untrue nor is it unthinkable. Facebook has a fake news problem and amazon has third party suppliers who sell fake products and don't keep up to the amazon standard. But the point is, Facebook is optimizing for content that just helps them segment someone by personal preferences and badger them to buy more and more.
... And I pretty much went off on a tangent after that about consumerism. However, money being in the market is better than rotting away in a corner. I guess i just haven't made up my mind.
I saw this book, The Four, at a bookstore yesterday!! Of course, I chuckled a little.
I have to say, after digging into the argument a bit more, I'm not fully opposed to the entire premise. These four companies have a combined stock market value of $2.3 trillion, roughly the GDP of France. They are the consumer web. They are engines of growth and wealth but they do not create prosperity.
Google might be the funniest/saddest/strangest of the bunch because of the extent to which it tries to look like an altruistic organization. I'm not sure if that's a cynical or really obvious thing to say. I'd probably enjoy Dave Eggers' The Circle, but I have a problem with liking things that lots of other people like.
It's a book promotion, but Scott G talks about content towards the end which hits close to home. All the top 4 companies have mostly sacrificed control over content in exchange for scale and have pretty much optimized for "distraction content". Because why care about quality content if the users are telling you what they would like to purchase with the least amount of friction? It matters because this concentrates wealth with a few, turns people into mindless consumers.. well, capitalism stuff. It's a very weird dichotomy because capitalism absolutely encourages innovation and entrepreneurship. Consumerism is great for progress because people's willingness to purchase something is higher in consumer economies, which is ultimately great for entrepreneurs because their customers or users expect lesser value for their dollar as opposed to most other economies. This is a very important distinction and a core reason why america is a hotbed for innovation. Question is - is this at all possible without making people dumber?
Who says consumerism is making people dumber? I don't buy that at all. In fact I don't think the article made a case for any negative aspects of wealth concentration or sacrificing control over content. The only worrying prediction was that the EU would start ramping up their fines, but Europe feeding parasitically off our freedom is par for the course anyway.
This author is just the worst kind of person. Sitting on the sidelines, peddling his baseless negativity and taking all the value created by the tech sector for granted. It's easy enough to just ignore people like him but if they're successful in stirring up enough fear and resentment they can actually alter public sentiment which in the worst cases can result in public officials stepping in to capitalize on voters emotions. The last thing I want is for the government to step in and start fucking up everything that is awesome about Amazon. Everyone should read up on the US vs Microsoft case to see just what a joke these anti-trust laws are and what it looks like when the government tries to go after a tech company that they feel has gotten too big.
I agree that the premise of the book is garbage, the entire article is BS but yet it made it to hacker news on that day - which is bad. Right at the end though, he talks about how control over content has been ceded for scale and this is certainly not untrue nor is it unthinkable. Facebook has a fake news problem and amazon has third party suppliers who sell fake products and don't keep up to the amazon standard. But the point is, Facebook is optimizing for content that just helps them segment someone by personal preferences and badger them to buy more and more. ... And I pretty much went off on a tangent after that about consumerism. However, money being in the market is better than rotting away in a corner. I guess i just haven't made up my mind.
I saw this book, The Four, at a bookstore yesterday!! Of course, I chuckled a little.
I have to say, after digging into the argument a bit more, I'm not fully opposed to the entire premise. These four companies have a combined stock market value of $2.3 trillion, roughly the GDP of France. They are the consumer web. They are engines of growth and wealth but they do not create prosperity.
Google might be the funniest/saddest/strangest of the bunch because of the extent to which it tries to look like an altruistic organization. I'm not sure if that's a cynical or really obvious thing to say. I'd probably enjoy Dave Eggers' The Circle, but I have a problem with liking things that lots of other people like.
I'll take Gary Vaynerchuk over Scott Galloway, and that's not saying much.