
Manifestos and Monopolies - misiti3780
https://stratechery.com/2017/manifestos-and-monopolies/
======
TimJYoung
The author lost me here:

"it is a reflection of the fundamental reality that the supply of content (and
increasingly goods) is infinite, and thus worthless"

No, the supply of _worthless_ content is infinite. The supply of interesting
content provided by professionals with the backgrounds necessary to provide
such content is not. This is why you still see the majority of journalistic
content provided by a small number of organizations, with the rest simply
aggregating that content. Facebook, Google, etc. actually produce very little
cultural value on their own. Their entire existence is predicated on co-opting
the content of others for free and using it to make money. It's a heck of a
business model, if you can get away with it, but let's stop pretending that
good content just appears out of thin air...

~~~
tribune
I agree. I think in the future we will probably see a modest decline in demand
for "worthless" content as consumers seek higher-quality variants

~~~
oooglaaa
Exactly this. My facebook newsfeed is full of worthless content, which, though
once fun and interesting is now a commodity (cat videos, for example)

As someone in my mid twenties, I spend far more time on instagram and snapchat
than on facebook. If facebook was to disappear tomorrow, it'd probably be okay
with me. Imagine for a second if Facebook hadn't acquired Instagram. Attention
shifts very quickly in the digital world, quicker than a lot of people think.

~~~
Demoneeri
If your Facebook feed is worthless, it's your fault. Either you have nobody
you care about or you like worthless stuff. I'm connected with family and
friends, I'm following interesting people and liked interesting pages. My
newsfeed is full of great content, from people I care about or page with
content I want to read/watch.

~~~
oooglaaa
Perhaps worthless is extreme. But its not nearly as interesting as insta/snap

~~~
astrange
I try to keep all my Content(tm) feeds not-too-interesting. Anything more is
anxiety inducing these days.

------
RodericDay
> I have probably written more positive pieces about Facebook than just about
> any other company, and frankly, still will.

> My deep-rooted suspicion of Zuckerberg’s manifesto has nothing to do with
> Facebook or Zuckerberg; I suspect that we agree on more political goals than
> not.

> I don’t necessarily begrudge Facebook this dominance;

> Moreover, my proposals are in line with Zuckerberg’s proclaimed goals:

I don't honestly like how the author keeps doing this two steps forward, one
step back approach, hedging at every turn. I guess hedging is the "smart"
strategy, and he's fond of calling himself a strategist. However, it makes for
a fairly annoying read.

It echoes that term that mocks all the security at airports, "security
theater", but this one instead is a theater of even-handedness. I think the
pieces against Facebook need to be more decisive and less concerned with
themselves.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
He's saying:

1\. Facebook is executing a cunning strategy brilliantly; _and_

2\. The power this centralizes in Zuckerberg is concerning; _although_

3\. I'm not as worried as I might otherwise be because I trust him with that
power.

It's less hedging than expressing a nuanced point.

~~~
castle-bravo
I think it could also be described as a bait-and-switch.

> You think MZ's vision of replacing democratic institutions with facebook is
> a bad idea? Me too!

becomes

> Let me point out to you all the ways that MZ's intentions are good. I guess
> he's really a nice guy and we should trust him to provide a replacement for
> a failing democracy.

Personally, I can't get behind it, no matter how nuanced the rhetorical
strategy used to persuade me.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
It's an articulation of the general versus the specific. He's saying the
general idea underpinning Zuckerberg's manifesto is concerning. He's just
personally okay given it's specifically Zuckerberg manning the helm.
(Separately, he says Facebook is in a good economic position. That's a
separate train of thought from the manifesto discussion.)

~~~
monkbent
I have no idea how you guys are getting the impression I'm ok with
Zuckerberg's stated goals here. I think I was pretty clear on that point at
least!

~~~
RodericDay
Are you the author? I'm not saying you're ok with his goals. I'm saying that
you seem to be very concerned with not coming off as "one of those anti-FB
people", to the degree that it weakens the momentum of your writing a lot.

I'm sure other people really like it.

~~~
L_Rahman
Yes, monkbent is Ben's handle on HN.

------
coldcode
I use FB to keep in touch with friends who mostly live far from me. That's all
I really want, but that makes FB no money. What I wish I could do was build
exactly that because in the end that's what most people really care about;
however there is exactly zero money to do this sort of thing since FB has
basically cornered the market in connecting people.

The basic question is: would you pay $1 a month to keep in touch with friends
without ads? I doubt anyone would. This is what FB makes per person from ads.
Free is a powerful monopoly.

~~~
jondubois
I think that the reason why people wouldn't pay $1 per month is mostly because
of inconvenience. If people had to pay for Facebook as part of their income
tax (which amounted to about $12 per year), then I think a lot of people would
be OK with that and everyone would be better off overall.

The problem is that the force of marketing is invisible. Even people who are
resistant to targeted advertising are at least susceptible to indirect
advertising through peer pressure from their friends... If all your friends do
something, you will probably start doing it too - Or else, over time, they
might stop being friends with you.

I don't use Facebook much and so I rarely see their ads but I can clearly feel
the effects of Facebook's advertising in my life through my personal and
professional relationships.

~~~
wtbob
> If people had to pay for Facebook as part of their income tax (which
> amounted to about $12 per year), then I think a lot of people would be OK
> with that and everyone would be better off overall.

But which Facebook would that be? Would it be the personal-page Facebook or
the News Feed Facebook or the Facebook of Tomorrow? It's obvious that a State
could build a Facebook clone, but is there any evidence that it could innovate
well?

Granted, Facebook itself is imperfect, but it at least has to provide
_someone_ some value: Statebook would only need to give some grandees a sense
of self-importance.

~~~
type0
> Granted, Facebook itself is imperfect, but it at least has to provide
> someone some value: Statebook would only need to give some grandees a sense
> of self-importance.

Imagine the future where Statebook would provide this invaluable service to
vote online and do your taxes when Zuck becomes a successful politician.

