Silly example: To junk collectors junk has value. But I think it's safe to say not everyone will agree with the junk collector.
Ethics really should not vary all that much from person to person. If it does then what's the point of even having a notion of ethics? The whole idea is to have some sort of common standard.
Value in this sense is nothing like ethics.
If we ask the junk collector if stealing is wrong, his answer should not vary much from the answer anyone else gives.
For some people, enriching investors using the most effective means possible (high growth; any legal business purpose is OK), seems to be well within the scope of "making society better".
This is sort of changing the subject a bit and for that I apologise. What do you guys think of MS "DirectAccess" that appeared in Windows 7?
One might call it their follow-up to the basic PPTP VPN. It is marketed to corporate customers.
It's IPv6 inside IPv4 and it seems to require a MS server to work. Whether that server is a forwarding gateway I do not know. Beyond that I haven't really dug into it. And I haven't seen it discussed much.
"content creators to stop treating users like push button monkeys"
Good luck with that approach.
An alternative approach is to show users how they are being treated like push-button monkeys. All it takes is some users who are not willing to tolerate it who demand better treatment; then other users see they are not having to deal with the same crap and they demand the same treatment. And then, like magic, web developers change their tune, almost like... push-button monkeys.
The blog post zeros right in on the purpose of the pg essay.
It is investor driven.
But the part about businesses building value is what is a little fuzzy? What is value, anyway?
If some "growth hackers", using the incedible and low cost reach of the web, manage to get a million people to "sign up" for some "thing" - never mind that you or someone else may think this "thing" is all but worthless - then this is a "business" that can be exploited. And that's what internet VC do.
Consumers define "value". If they are willing to pay in money or even just attention for absolute garbage, it is still "value". This appears to be true, at least it is true for investors, whether we like it or not.
Silly example: To junk collectors junk has value. But I think it's safe to say not everyone will agree with the junk collector.
Ethics really should not vary all that much from person to person. If it does then what's the point of even having a notion of ethics? The whole idea is to have some sort of common standard.
Value in this sense is nothing like ethics.
If we ask the junk collector if stealing is wrong, his answer should not vary much from the answer anyone else gives.
For some people, enriching investors using the most effective means possible (high growth; any legal business purpose is OK), seems to be well within the scope of "making society better".