It's worth noting that this was a pretty active debate as TVs were going from one in the household to one in every room. "We don't want to put a TV in our kids' room, it'll rot their brains." And there was research to back up that it had a negative effect to some degree.
So why are we surprised that when we put a TV in the kids' hands things got even worse? Meta testified on the stand recently that they're not a social media company anymore, they're now all about video. Tiktok is the new TV. Every app wants to Tiktokify. The money from TV, just pushing an endless stream of video to someone, is very good.
We were able to go back to one TV in the house (at least I was), and even avoid a big chunk of the ads when watching TV (by paying for Netflix/etc) and even radio (Spotify/etc).
Except we now we put a garbage TV in every hand.
It's a terrible idea because it's a tiny screen; because it's not a shared experience, but an isolating one; because it's been proven that it's bad for eyesight/myopia. But most of all, it's terrible because the content is crap.
Spending hours watching a never ending sequence of low effort 2min videos that need to deliver on the first 30s (or they're skipped) is not the way to make anyone smarter/saner.
I don't think it's just the ads, I mean we had magazines, TV, and the web, they all had advertising, and no population-level impact on child & teen mental health impact was observed as these were adopted.
Then we got the one-two punch of social media apps on phones, and everywhere we saw these get adopted, we saw depression and anxiety increase en masse.
My own theory is that if you have to pick one thing it's the phone, because screen time/attention skyrockets when you get one of those, and they can have you freaking out about whatever clickbait they're feeding you pretty much 24/7. When I grew up there was just a computer in the den and when I wasn't in the den, whatever I'd viewed on it was out of sight, mostly out of mind.
It's the combination of ads, analytics, personalization, and scale.
Ads mean that you want to keep the user on your platform as long as possible. They are incentivized to make it addictive at the most fundamental level. A company selling movies doesn't care how often you watch the movies you buy, they just want to convince you to buy them. A company that makes money for each minute you spend watching a movie would put out very different products.
Analytics mean they can precisely see the effect of any given change to figure out what makes the product more addictive.
Personalization means they can tailor your experience to be addictive to you, personally, rather than just generally addictive to people.
And scale means they can afford to pay enormous amounts of money to a lot of smart people and have them work full time on the problem of making the product more addictive.
> we had magazines, TV, and the web, they all had advertising, and no population-level impact on child & teen mental health impact was observed as these were adopted
That is not true. Distorted body perception, anorexia etc. due to omnipresent photoshopped models in magazines and poster ads where a thing decades ago.
Things escalated with social media, but there were issues long before that.
The previous static ads of the past are completely different beast compared to targeted advertising and attention driven design(leading to doomscrolling etc).
My own theory is that kids are rightfully anxious and depressed as they can now easily see the state of the world and the direction it's going. This is the world they have to enter soon, and they can do almost nothing to change it, so of course they're more anxious/depressed.
I certainly don't have all the answers here but the entire $300B+ SaaS industry (and a bunch of other stuff that behaves like SaaS) was built in great part on a loophole in the GPL. More precisely, many of the people who licensed their code under GPL were eventually dismayed when they realized you could sell access to whatever you like built on top of that code, over a network, and you wouldn't have to distribute the source. The AGPL was devised to close this loophole.
There are really two dynamics at play, one is that there are people who want to give a gift to the world and promote a culture of sharing, in fact they want to REQUIRE you to pay it forward if you use their stuff. That's the ethos behind GPL and AGPL. It has proven to be way more effective than the bean counters expected!
The other dynamic is the more conventional profit making and taking which has perceived a loophole and used it to make some extra bucks on the backs of the nice sharing guys.
I don't have anything against profits, I like money and I own a business where we choose to keep some code totally closed source because money. But you can't deny that this division exists. And I think this dynamic is what most of the dilemmas in the OSS world really arise from, there is a strain of altruism since the early days of the movement which has been betrayed, for many it feels awful if you've released GPL'ed code and then watched Big Tech promptly pile a bunch of proprietary code on top of it and use the resulting machine to strangle the freedoms of the human race over the Internet. You don't automatically get to squeeze profits from a thing just because it's out there and it's shiny and nice. That may not be why the author built it. It may be a betrayal of their intent if you do.
I share your sentiment and would love to expand how I feel as if even AGPL isn't enough for cloud providers like Amazon, Google etc. which can just technically run it on their servers without too much modifications or release the modifications and still compete against the original AGPL party
Personally I get worried that even AGPL might not be enough for me if I create a service which faces the public because if it gets large enough then companies technically can still call dibs on me and use their infrastructure to compete against me and I could do nothing...
It was an interesting thought experiment and made me blur the lines between (Fully open source good, source available bad) to well... it depends. And I think everyone should have such nuance since I don't think we live in a world of black and white but its interesting to hear everyone's opinion on it as this topic gets raised every once in a while.
> which can just technically run it on their servers without too much modifications or release the modifications and still compete against the original AGPL party
Sounds like you want "monopoly as a license" :)
Big companies will rather ignore your project than use an AGPL licensed product. For them it's just not worth the hassle.
Maybe 1 out a 1 billion software is so revolutionary that licenses be damned. But maybe we should temper our expectations a bit around the software we build!
Interesting, I might write my software under AGPL but still I guess some questions arise as if sure the big companies might not use my project but some smaller companies can still create an competing product.
As an example immich is an AGPL based software which has its own instance and then https://pixelunion.eu (I think gives more free stuff like 16 gig instance etc) and then competes with immich itself
They can do this because they release any changes they make or they don't change it that much .
> Sounds like you want "monopoly as a license" :)
What I want is if someone uses my open source product and then uses it to create an competing product, I am under no obligation to release it under a foss and much rather then release it under an source available license
The type of audience Immich targets, pretty fundamentally limits the appeal of any hosted solution, unlike a lot of the infrastructure-type of project a lot of these "big cloud taking my code" complaints come from.
SSPL doesn't help with the real problem that SSPL/etc companies complain about though; that AWS won't give you money when they turn your software into a service and will compete with you to reduce your income.
Of course, the license is kind of irrelevant to that situation, Amazon will just reimplement your stuff from scratch if it is popular enough.
Okay? You might as well not make it easy for them by letting them copy your software verbatim? What's this argument that since life isn't fair you might as well just give up and help the evil people? People following this argument are one reason evil people are so powerful.
It's incredible. I don't know the guy and I'm not being paid to say this, but I really think Blog Quest is a stroke of genius.
The article totally buries the lead, so for anyone who misses it: this is a browser extension which simply keeps track of a list of the RSS feeds of websites you've browsed, so that later you can subscribe to them if you want to. It was forked from an extension which does the same for Mastodon.
It solves a very simple problem, which is that when I'm browsing a website I'm usually not thinking about subscribing to it, but later on when I'm reading my feeds, I wish I could add some more.
Blog Quest does what Mozilla was supposed to do with their hundreds of millions of dollars. From the moment that they declared their mission was to promote the open Web and negotiated an annual nine figure check out of Google. This is where the money should have gone: easy UX for people to subscribe to websites through an open standard, laying the groundwork for a free social graph on top of it one day. If they had done it at the right time they might have changed the course of history (again?).
Sadly they didn't. For 15 years they gradually buried RSS and then one day some random dude just throws a browser extension out there better than anything they ever did in the space. Extension of the year. Massive kudos to this guy.
It's definitely interesting to look at people's mental models around AI.
I don't know shit about the math that makes it work, but my mental model is basically - "A LLM is an additional tool in my toolbox which performs summarization, classification and text transformation tasks for me imperfectly, but overall pretty well."
Probably lots of flaws in that model but I just try to think like an engineer who's attempting to get a job done and staying up to date on his tooling.
But as you say there are people who have been fooled by the "AI" angle of all this, and they think they're witnessing the birth of a machine god or something. The example that really makes me throw up my hands is r/MyBoyfriendIsAI where you have women agreeing to marry the LLM and other nonsense that is unfathomable to the mentally well.
There's always been a subset of humans who believe unimaginably stupid things, like that there's a guy in the sky who throws lightning bolts when he's angry, or whatever. The interesting (as in frightening) trend in modernity is that instead of these moron cults forming around natural phenomena we're increasingly forming them around things that are human made. Sometimes we form them around the state and human leaders, increasingly we're forming them around technologies, in line with Arthur C. Clarke's third law - that "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
If I sound harsh it's because I am, we don't want these moron cults to win, the outcome would be terrible, some high tech version of the Dark Ages. Yet at this moment we have business and political leaders and countless run-of-the-mill tech world grifters who are leaning into the moron cult version of AI rather than encouraging people to just see it as another tool in the box.
"The major reason is they are a private company with good business..."
This is unquestionably, undoubtedly incorrect. It is a really low information meme that's racing around the Internet right now. If you want a contemporary counterexample take a look at NASCAR. They're also not publicly traded, they're family owned, yet they are abusive toward drivers, teams and fans, and they're gradually ruining the sport that made them rich. We know all of this because it got so bad Michael Jordan decided to sue them and there's a ton of information coming out in discovery at the moment.
The real reason Valve are being the "good guys" at the moment (not really, but yes they're doing some amazing stuff for Linux) is because they feel threatened by Windows and Microsoft, they perceive a long term competitive threat to Steam. Competition makes businesses both private and public work for your dollar. The US economy has been characterized by a decrease in competition and an increase in monopolies for decades now which is the root of many price hikes and anti-consumer practices.
>The real reason Valve are being the "good guys" at the moment
Ok, but this “at the moment” has lasted at least since 2011. Basically my whole adult life Valve gas been a pretty great company delivering value and not being annoying.
> The real reason Valve are being the "good guys" at the moment
Yep. Valve is seen as virtuous because Microsoft is greedy and the default Windows 11 install is generally viewed as a tire-fire of an OS
Are they doing good things for Linux? Absolutely. As a long-time Linux user I am over the moon that we are where we are. But the general populaton only gives a shit because Microsoft is abusive.
I do overall agree that Valve is only situationally the good guy here, but they do also have a sustainable approach to business and growth which I think helps this.
Monopolies need to be restricted by regulations. In micro economics there is a term marginal cost, and economy of scale. In the software as a service era, the cost of serving one extra customer is minimal, so it make economic sense for such companies to grow infinitely. This is why our current system do not work. As the best strategy is to become as big as possible and capture the entire market.
There is a bit of a debate about what to call the American economic system these days, but I think we should all agree it's not a capitalist one. It's not one that Adam Smith would look at, approve, and say oh yeah baby that's exactly what I was writing about in Wealth of Nations.
It looks a lot closer to the economic policies of the most successful fascist regimes - the best term for modern American economics might be "democratic fascist." There is a facade of a market economy, but there's heavy intervention to privilege not just domestic businesses, but a specific set of big ones that have close ties to the ruling party. This is not much different from how Hitler and Mussolini approached economic policy. Basically have your system revolve around private ownership, pretend to have a market economy but actually make very centralized decisions and execute them through a small number of private oligarchs you're buddies with. The uniquely American flavor is that there are two parties which do this instead of one (but three would be unimaginable), and you can choose which pack of bandits you signal loyalty to without being executed.
I find it interesting that this "feature" of the US (having those big monopolies) is often mentioned as a "weakness" of e.g. Europe, where companies cannot get as big (I guess partly due to regulations).
And in turn, when US companies "lose" against, say, Chinese companies, they will say it's because they get help from their authoritarian system (through the government). Which is a bit ironic given that the US monopolies do exactly that to the rest of the western world, right?
On the spectrum of authoritarian oligarchy of the type you describe, from 0 (liberal democracy with well regulated free market capitalism) to 100 (totalitarian oligarchy), where would you put: The USA; The average EU country; Russia.
The whole US economy is so deep into La-La Land at this point that they don't really need to be a good business. There are already murmurings that they may pull off a trillion dollar IPO, I don't see why they wouldn't, Amazon was making it cool to lose money hand over fist during your IPO as far back as 1997. They have the President willing to pump up their joint ventures with executive orders, we may just see tech become more like the financial industry, where a handful of companies are dubbed "too big to fail" based on political connections, and get bailed out at the taxpayer's expense when things get too rough. None of these guys function according to the real rules of the economy or even the legal system at this point, they just make stuff up as they go along and if they're big enough or know someone big enough they often get away with it.
In Deep Work, Cal Newport posits that even the most disciplined, high performers can do work that requires really focused attention for a max of four hours per day. He's a computer science professor, not exactly "management."
And these days, for a lot of knowledge workers there's a pretty strong case that anything which isn't this "deep work" can probably be automated.
So yeah if I'm paying you a full time salary I want those four hours. Without necessarily rendering judgment on what a moonlighting clause should or shouldn't look like, if I'm not getting those four hours, I don't want you on my payroll.
And you think you're more likely to get those four hours in an open office environment with distractions aplenty, as opposed to my effectively noise-proofed home office where I can actually focus?
It really depends. I believe and apply a lot of Cal Newport advice, and benefit greatly from it. But I also see in my daily life how just being close to people you work with, and (crucially) being a short walk away/floor from people in other groups, creates immense value by helping unclog processes and especially by creating new ideas and products that wouldn‘t otherwise exist.
Bullshit. When I'm in the office most of my time is spent on making sure it looks like I'm working and obsessing about if someone is standing/sitting behind me and looking at my screen or not, because I'm in a panopticum. There is no time for deep work.
First, nobody cares what you want. Second, do you pay for those 4 hours adequately, guess what if you don't? Even if you do, are you OK with 2 hours today and 6 hrs tomorrow? How about a year of 1 hour days and then a 24 hour period that fixes all the problems for last 2 years?
The Internet tough guy strikes again, as if employment is not a voluntary contract between two consenting adults. This militant attitude is always good for a laugh... hate management if you like, but if you think no employee ever worries about what their manager wants, sounds like you've never held a job.
Not really sure why I am even responding to this amazingly stupid line of discussion. I mean if you absolutely hate the idea of having a boss (I know I did) then there is a solution for that - start your own company! It's not as easy as being a badass on the Internet, sure, but you might have to look at both sides of the argument and you might even end up getting rid of that chip on your shoulder.
Let me quickly go count my years of experience, will have to use all my digits and extremities, might be a minute.
I don't think you got the point behind the comment. We do not have a good way to quantify effort, thus we ask for a fixed set of time in chairs, tickets closed, etc that's the best we can come up with.
This is because in any monopoly/duopoly/oligopoly, the product inevitably stops being about what the user wants, and becomes about what the monopolist wants. They're removing features like this because simplifying configurations translates to reduced support costs, and reducing their costs and padding their margin is the name of the game for a monopolist, they believe there's nowhere else for you to go, so they can and will hose you over and over again.
We're now paying the piper for many years of accrued monopoly effects, it turns out the way our IP law is structured, the rights we've granted corporations to sue people who attempt any kind of reverse engineering etc. all privilege the monopolist and encourage the formation of the monopoly, because the entire legal and regulatory system is designed to juice corporate profits and pesky old laws like the Sherman Act which got in the way have essentially been ignored for decades.
One really important thing for people to understand is that until there's a serious change to these dynamics, IT WILL GET WORSE. Mac OS will get worse, FOREVER. So will Windows and all other monopolist products. This is why you really need to switch away from them as soon as you can; life will be an order of magnitude more miserable for whoever's still using these products a decade from now. They will just keep on squeezing whoever's left, harder and harder until the heat death of the universe.
> They're removing features like this because simplifying configurations translates to reduced support costs, and reducing their costs and padding their margin is the name of the game for a monopolist, they believe there's nowhere else for you to go, so they can and will hose you over and over again.
There may be some truth to that, but I really don't think it's the whole story. Otherwise how do you explain spending so much effort on eye candy like MacOS "liquid glass", or the redesigned settings app? For that matter, why bother with an annual release at all?
To me, I think it's a pretty obvious case of prioritizing style over substance. For whatever reason, but not to save money. If they really wanted to save money they'd stop with the gratuitous change.
Fair point, I'm not an Invidious user but I also feel like Video is part of a suite of services that I personally use, so I wanted to incorporate that way. There's lots of single purpose solutions to many things, I don't think that's the goal here. The idea is to look at the multiple habits that occur across social and put them in one place in a simple consumable format that just gives you what you need rather than promoting idle scrolling/clicking, etc
So why are we surprised that when we put a TV in the kids' hands things got even worse? Meta testified on the stand recently that they're not a social media company anymore, they're now all about video. Tiktok is the new TV. Every app wants to Tiktokify. The money from TV, just pushing an endless stream of video to someone, is very good.
reply