Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

> I just pointed out my feelings on why they usually don’t

I think this part of the article, instead of just being the last four paragraphs, should have been almost all of it. As it is, you make some very strong claims with no supporting argument whatsoever:

"the solution has to be political"

"The current system of profit motives, one might call it a market, was designed to optimise the process of extracting, refining, and transforming physical resources."

"some like to idealise the aforementioned market as a free and unregulated system, the truth is that it optimises rather poorly under those circumstances, and needs heavy regulation to align profit motives in the direction of efficient processing and distribution of resources."

And this in a footnote:

"I’m not convinced we should [keep these profit motives at all]"

All of this needs a lot of justification.




... Does it? The author made it pretty clear throughout the article that (in their opinion; see the "Blockchain" section) the walled-gardening comes from having to trap in your users in order to make some money from your service. The conclusion that you need to change the (larger picture) motivations for the existence of these services in order not to fall into this behaviour seems logical to me. (And, of course, if you want to change social organisation/motivation, the solution has to be political.)


> Does it?

Yes, because...

> in their opinion


> see the Blockchain section

They expand on why that is their opinion just fine.


Evidently you and I have very different standards for what counts as an explanation.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: