Yeah, except for the fact that there’s no one bbs “to rule them all”. The power these platforms have mean they’re up there in terms of influence of govt.
As I saw concisely said on Twitter: If you can silence a king, you are the king
You view this as a bad thing. As a consumer, I view it as a good thing. I’m not sure if folks remember what “apps on mobile” were like before Apple came along, but it was the goddamn Wild West. The fact that it’s walled in, that I’m not going to get pwned, that my parents won’t (and won’t be tempted to by the promise of an extra $0.99 saving) is to my mind, a good thing.
If all this competition that the article talked about was such a good thing, apps would be cheaper on Android, and I, as a consumer, would switch. Fact is, the fact that Tinder et al are now bypassing Google’s mechanisms isn’t a good thing to me at all. It’s more the reason to stay on iOS.
The article writer is pissed he can’t get access to me without paying Apple’s toll, but what he doesn’t understand is that I am like it like that.
I’m far from the biggest fan of Facebook, but I’m absolutely a fan of playing devils advocate in an organization if for no other reason than to solicit reactions and get people engaged. As someone who will use this device sparingly when appropriate, that’s really what this post looked like to me (as opposed to someone who was in it to get terrorists signed up to fb... really?). I honestly feel sorry for the guy
An alternative approach I’ve long been fond of is to lengthen time horizons. In the long run, bad behavior is much more likely to come back and bite you. If you can get incentive structures on a longer term time horizon, you’re much less likely to engage in risky behavior that might have short term payoffs but sinks you in the long run.
We are all better off because uber willfully disregarded these laws and regulations. These laws once had a good reason, but are now still on the books only because incumbents have regulators in their pockets.
As for lobbying to have the laws changed, if you expect startups to be able to lobby in every jurisdiction to get the law changed against incumbents when the regulators often come from the industry the startup is disrupting, then I got a bridge to sell you.
This isn't the right answer. There are times when you need government intervention, and there are times when you don't. The trick is figuring out which is which.
As they often say, libertarians didn't defeat Nazism.
To reply to the people below as to why @themartorana might be against estate taxes: if the tax system does its job properly, death shouldn't be a taxable event. Treating capital gains as normal income, closing shitty loopholes etc - people are paying their fair share that way. Taxing at death would be double dipping. Instead, it's used as a way to claw back failed capital gains tax and it's an awful way to do it (making people sell property, etc)
This is complete bullshit. The number of famous artists/scientists/writers/etc that have been completely unpopular until after they died is staggering. Using $ as a basis for value is a completely flawed measure.
I loved the last one. The huge thing that's missing for me on this one is the ability to make the text smaller. You get way fewer tweets on any screen. Probably going to downgrade
OK, I'm the article author, and I think that's great feedback. I didn't pick the title; originally it was "Rebuilding the Berlin Wall"… but editors will be editors :)
I was a little annoyed at the arbitrary change, but on the basis of your feedback, went back and asked the editor to change it. It's still not exactly what I wanted, but it does address some elements of what you've written above. The iPhone clickbait is out.
As a writer, honestly, it does get mighty exasperating when this happens. And, fwiw, you guys have all got insight into the messiness of the editorial/content process :)
I think it might be helpful to read the article: "But as any internet entrepreneur will tell you, relying entirely on people makes scaling difficult. Technology, on the other hand, makes it much easier. And that means that in many respects, what has emerged today is almost more pernicious; because that same technology has effectively turned not just some, but every single person you communicate with using technology — your acquaintances, your colleagues, your family and your friends — into those equivalent informants."
If he is, it's only because he's managed to take that load of crap job posting and somehow turn it into an article advertising the fact on Quartz.
A bigger false dichotomy I have never seen in my life. Good vs nice, with some kind of implication that nice people cannot have integrity? It's the worst kind of these posts — just enough truth sprinkled in with the bullshit to make you think he's onto something.
As I saw concisely said on Twitter: If you can silence a king, you are the king