Yes, it’s incredibly silly and ridiculous. It’s no coincidence that most of the people I know in real life who support socialism also agree with the statement “We’ve already invented everything”.
Meanwhile we are still in the dark ages technology-wise.
Let me know when a worker cooperative assembles the next iPhone from scratch.
Why don’t supporters of socialism assemble worker cooperatives and prove to us they can innovate?
Not to burst your anecdotal bubble but I’m a socialist and I agree it’s silly and ridiculous. But what do I know, I guess I just also consider tech workers to be workers.
Which turned out to be a bunch of hyped up marketing talk. Why does every person in SV I know seem to love the narrative that we’re being mind controlled by micro-targeted FB ads, which to be fair is what I used to believe.
Everyone on HN switches between “ads don’t work and targeting is BS” to “ads are manipulating our entire country by taking our data”
Even individuals are capable to hold contradicting opinions.
> There are lots of contradictions in people’s strongly held beliefs. Someone might preach self-sufficiency in politics, but coddle their children. An individual might oppose abortion on the grounds that human life is sacred and may still support the death penalty for convicted murders. A person might argue for the freedom of individual expression in the arts but want hateful speech to be regulated.
I think they are both true, but the second is worded differently than I would.
I think ads can work, but don't in many cases (based on recent stories that cancelling certain kinds of ad spend has no effect on outcomes). In some cases, like Uber advertising to get users, this seems entirely plausible.
So I largely think ads themselves are kind of harmless. But ad-backed business models are dangerous, because they optimize for "engagement", which tends to promote content that is divisive over more thoughtful, nuanced content. Sadly, it also seems to require gathering huge amounts of information about users in a centralized spot, which seems risky for a variety of reasons.
The whole thing reminds me of a call I got about 10 years ago to participate in a survey about smoking, and one of the questions they asked was "Do you believe nicotine causes cancer?" I paused because my understanding is that nicotine itself doesn't cause cancer, but the common delivery mechanisms at the time (smoking, dipping) do increase the risk of cancer. They forced me to answer yes/no, so I said "no", but obviously a decade later, I still remember it. Do ads cause harm? Probably not much, taken on their own. But everything _around_ them seems to.
Opting to relinquish one's data to a principled, accountable, and transparent organization driven by clear objectives and beholden to a strict privacy policy, is very different to what one does when they sign up to Facebook.
Wonder if this move will reduce immoral behavior by companies in the cloud if they know their actions are public. Seems perhaps a bit too far but the intentions could be good.
