There is no "viable third platform" because people don't vote against the two existing ones with their wallets.
Can you name an example where a government succeeded in breaking up a monopoly, and the result was better for consumers? AT&T, IBM, and Microsoft were all "broken up", but it didn't make a difference for consumers. In every case, a competitor forced them to change their ways.
I mean, breaking up Standard Oil wasn't exactly great for consumers either. And those companies eventually re-merged anyways. But ole Rockefeller sure did make out well due to the breakup.
In what sense are they shitty? They are actually usable by normal people. This is a big reason they are popular.
I don't like (most of) the content on those sites. This is not surprising. The content is aimed at people who can't use Signal. Such a person is different from me in many ways.
Facebook is cluttered with ads and distracting posts (not from your friends and family). If you use it often enough, you probably stop seeing how terrible it is. Try looking at it with fresh eyes sometime.
Twitter boosts Elon Musk and the things he is interested in.
Widespread algorithmic control and corporate spam spreads architecture?
>They are actually usable by normal people.
Usability is just one dimension. If your site is perfectly usable, yet steals your credit card number and sells it to the highest bidder, it is still a shitty site, just not in usability.
>This is a big reason they are popular.
Really FB/Meta became popular long before they were at their current level of shittiness. Really FB wrote the modern book on new levels of shittiness like selling social graphs and tracking people along with connecting all kinds of other data and stealing information from your phone with overly huge permissions and data gathering.
Apparently, activists need something that is "open, decentralized, and user controlled". Those activists choose to use facebook. That tells me they are at least one of two things:
1. Too stupid to make a plan that could possibly work
2. Too lazy to execute on a plan that could possibly work
Knowing this is a useful signal. It tells me their judgment is terrible, and I should not listen to them ;)
> Apparently, activists need something that is "open, decentralized, and user controlled". Those activists choose to use facebook. That tells me they are at least one of two things:
> 1. Too stupid to make a plan that could possibly work
> 2. Too lazy to execute on a plan that could possibly work
Your comment is a pretty good example of what not to do: society/technology makes good choices harder, so flog individuals about their lack of self-discipline when they don't do yet-another hard thing. People only have so much time and self-discipline, have some empathy.
The only thing the flogging does is give the flogger the chance to feel unjustifiably superior.
> Knowing this is a useful signal. It tells me their judgment is terrible, and I should not listen to them ;)
What you're doing is a generalized method to dismiss anything and anyone:
1. Find a thing.
2. Search for some aspect that isn't perfect. Viciously criticize that aspect.
3. Dismiss the whole thing on account of that aspect.
The only thing that using Instagram tells me about these activists is that they weren't setting out to solve some ideological communication technology problem. They had other priorities.
I would consider myself an activist, but not the Blue MAGA variety. Too much of the issue is people still think they can change minds online. In reality you are just chanting to the base, a negative feedback cycle for bad ideas that do not resonate with those outside your group.
Instead, go to where people all are, real life in the real world. I go out and talk to people all the time. I listen to them before telling them. I'm more interested in getting people talking than I am in changing their minds (right now) and providing them with ideas they are unlikely to hear online. I see my "sapphire gals" (retired nokingers) becoming less extreme, not repeating the shallow talking points. I hear them asking new questions.
Talking and working with others in person is 100x better.
We were able to organize large groups of loosely connected people before social media. Women's sufferage and the Civil Rights movement are two notable examples. Speedrunning the moon landing after Sputnik and Kennedy's assasination another.
And you are expecting countries to play by the rules when their existence in under threat. The EU will get people off Google, off Facebook, off fucking Pinterest even if it means moving back to Teletext.
Idk who you’re talking to or what you’re talking about.
I certainly don’t “expect” (in the normative sense) countries to continue relying on these services. Breaking network effects is hard, but I wouldn’t blame a country for trying and I’d probably be happy with them succeeding (to the extent they facilitate free expression of their people).
Of course, the huge difference is that China also actually invests in replacing them with something. EU doesn't and only France has given it the least of efforts.
But that won't stop EU countries from just outlawing these services.
This is overly harsh; it starts with the (flawed IMO) perspective that people are dedicated "professional" activists rather than amateurs from many different backgrounds who come together around something they care about and grow/evolve/deppen over time. It makes complete sense that they use tools in front of them AND don't necessarily get -what are quite subtle angles to most - all the issues with their use. It doesn't make them lazy or stupid, but if you have the skills & talents to help with this yet do nothing you might be projecting...
More likely these activists chose the most convenient platform for getting their message out. IG is popular and that makes it an obvious choice. Also keep in mind that activists will generally use what they are already familiar with, and Facebook runs three of the most popular platforms i.e. platforms that activists were probably already using before they became activists.
The only reason activists would switch to something else is if Facebook gives them a reason to do so. I doubt this one incident is enough of a reason.
They need to reach people where they are, so basically all the platforms where people hang out. It's not the activists who are lazy - it's people in general, who continue to use FB even though it is cluttered with ads and other distractions.
It's because the corporations were all banding together to censor their opponents a few years ago, so they got used to the idea that large corporations are your friends. The left took an opportunistic stance on this instead of a principled one, despite the fact that they're the side that on paper is supposedly opposed to letting corporations turn into pseudo-governments.
A given company may or may not be organized this way.
IBM had a system of "blue dollars". If the server group sells a computer, it gets revenue ("green dollars", i.e. real money). The leaders of the server group are credited some fraction of the real money as "blue dollars", which they can give to teams that enabled their success. For example, if sales are being won based on a new feature of the XLC compiler, the server group leads would recognize them by sending their blue dollars to the XLC compiler team. Teams choose what to do (and whose problems to solve) to maximize the amount of blue dollars they can get. Promotions and pay go to people who drive blue dollar "revenue" for their team.
Why does IBM work this way? It is too big to be centrally planned: If the compiler team does amazing work, and the engineers get no credit, all the smart and hardworking engineers leave. The central planners in Armonk re-invented a market economy to figure out what work matters and reward it.
> What happens when a capital accumulates in a smaller pool of folks who choose how to allocate those resources.
> Silicon Valley isn't responding to demand, it's essentially centrally planning where to assign resources to create demand.
Silicon Valley is not centrally planned. The people at Microsoft did not go to a committee and ask the people who ran Sun Microsystems if it would be okay to release Windows NT. They mailed the CEO of Sun a coffin (1).
Mcdonald's famously invested in Chipotle as a risk mitigation strategy. If consumers want healthier fast food, sales at Mcdonald's will go down, and sales at Chipotle will go up. Investing in something anti-correlated with your business lowers risk by paying you when your own business is hurt by a surprise.
If you can see the future, by all means invest in the one stock that will go up the most. If you can't see the future, diversifying into assets that have negative correlation (one goes up if the other goes down) lowers volatility at the cost of limiting possible upside.
Nvidia has a massive pile of money. Where should they invest? If they believe in what OpenAI is doing, investing in it makes sense no matter what hardware OpenAI chooses. If OpenAI manages to make something much better than Nvidia hardware, Nvidia's sales will go down as the value of OpenAI goes (way) up. If OpenAI fails to make something as good as Nvidia hardware, they buy Nvidia hardware.
It is odd how internet commentators seem to think that companies make investment decisions as a way to root for a team. They do not. That is not how finance professionals think!
If you have extra cash and cannot spend it on your own business, you can just pay dividends to the shareholders. The shareholders are free to invest in competing businesses (or not, if they want a pure play without hedging). Turning the business into a hedge fund with the retained capital seems to primarily benefit insiders after a certain point.
> If you have extra cash and cannot spend it on your own business, you can just pay dividends to the shareholders.
That is an option. It is usually not the best option.
Dividends are taxed. You are forcing shareholders to pay a good chunk of money in taxes.
Suppose Nvidia decides not to hedge the risk that competing products eat into their margins. Some years they get lucky and are flush with revenue. Other years they have much lower revenue.
Even in bad years, they want to keep paying to make future products. Cutting employee pay or mass firings would break their engineering org. To avoid that, they would need enough cash on hand to survive several bad years. Now they can't pay dividends because they need this extra buffer of cash! Hedging is a better deal for everyone.
> The shareholders are free to invest in competing businesses.
OpenAI is not (yet) public. Most Nvidia shareholders can't choose to hedge risk by buying shares in OpenAI, or any similar company (they are all private or a small part of a bigger public business).
> Letting mega-billionaires spend mega-millions to buy the conversation around elections isn't my definition of freedom.
Spell out the details: Exactly who will not be permitted to speak under your definition of "freedom"?
If you say that only people with a billion dollars can be punished for speaking: Do you think the limit won't be lowered over time?
If the issue is that no person should be able to spend more than N million dollars in one "conversation", how do you allocate broadcast licenses when the price in an auction would be more than N million?
> > They are interested in learning about topics from credible people
> Honestly, you surprised me with this statement alone. interested in learning?
> do you think Trump wants to learn anything from AIPAC?
> or Pharma lobby or Military Industrial complex?
Trump is unusually sure of himself. But no man rules alone: There is a massive org under every president trying to run a government. I know for a fact that people two levels of management under Trump (i.e. Trump is their manager's manager) do take meetings with people who lobby on the issue of health care policy and (for and against) military procurement. I would be shocked if people who are for/against working with Isreal are never in a room with anyone who can set policy.
Imagine that it is your job to come up with policy for a bug expensive government program: The VA hospital system, a military procurement program that buys airplanes, the part of the state department focused on MENA, etc. If someone asks to meet, claiming that they did academic/technical work which shows you can get a better result with a policy change, you will take that meeting. Examples:
1. An MD researcher shows you can cut drug costs by switching one medication for another.
2. An engineer has reason to believe current stealth coatings on fighter planes won't work against China's missiles in 5 years.
3. An economist thinks that an ally (Isreal, Korea, etc.) have demographics that will stop them from being able to field an army within 20 years.
You should go into these meetings with skepticism, and there is a 90%-99% chance the person's idea is bad. But if an idea is good/correct/important, and you blew him off, your boss will be angry, and your career will be over.
Most people in government want to solve problems (and get credit for doing so). Most problems governments face have hard tradeoffs that voters don't understand/care about. Voters want unlimited healthcare at no cost to themselves, 100% success thwarting terrorists with no spying on citizens, military supremacy without paying much for weapons, etc. People asked to solve these problems are DESPERATE for new ideas to allow voters to see that they are getting good outcomes. Telling them you have a way around a hard tradeoff is music to their ears.
Thanks for the detailed comment. And I would describe lobbying as making sure when the opportunity arises your solution has a voice in that discussion.
Yes it sucks. But this is a human problem. Not a US gov problem.
> Why lobbyist can't just present their ideas publicly, like do a public free lessons to politicians and anyone who wants to attend
Different people (including politicians) have different priorities, assumptions, biases, etc. The argument that convinces one person won't land with someone else. The true value of a lobbyist is her ability to understand what a politician values, and present the argument that is convincing to him.
As an example: I met an EU citizen who thought fishing with hooks was immoral. It seemed cruel to her to put a hook in the fish's face. She traveled to the US to ask senators to ban it. Amazingly, she went to a few effective altruist meetups, networked her way into contacting the staff of two US senators, and managed to get meetings with both of them. But neither one introduced legislation for her.
What arguments could she have made?
1. The vegan argument: It is wrong to eat animals or make them suffer.
2. The environmental case: Humans should leave nature alone.
3. The public safety case: Some rivers have toxins that may accumulate in fish. Only a strict licensing system can keep people from fishing in polluted rivers, selling the fish to people who don't know the river had bad stuff in it, and getting sick.
<>
She believed in the vegan argument. No senator agreed with her. A good lobbyist would have told her:
"Senator X cares about the environment. Make the environmental case, and he is likely to listen to you. His constituents are not interested in veganism, and he wins elections by talking about standing up for the interests of ranchers. The vegan argument will not work, do not bring it up!"
Tailoring arguments to your audience can be dishonest if you take it too far. Not tailoring your argument at all is certain to fail: US Senators are busy. Handing them a 60 item list of all possible arguments, some of which they think are crazy, will cause them to ignore you.
I don't have any issues with them teaching politicians, but nothing should be hidden from public. let them do everything in public, because public needs to know what their representatives are doing.
this is also good for documenting and tracing arguments and facts.
There is no "viable third platform" because people don't vote against the two existing ones with their wallets.
Can you name an example where a government succeeded in breaking up a monopoly, and the result was better for consumers? AT&T, IBM, and Microsoft were all "broken up", but it didn't make a difference for consumers. In every case, a competitor forced them to change their ways.
reply