The companies themselves are bullshit
January 1, 2024 1:36 AM Subscribe
For much of this century, optimism that technology would make the world a better place fueled the perception that Silicon Valley was the moral alternative to an extractive Wall Street—that it was possible to make money, not at the expense of society but in service of it. In other words, many who joined the industry did so precisely because they thought that their work would be useful. Yet what we’re now seeing is a lot of bullshit. from It's All Bullshit [The Baffler; ungated]
Lots of thoughtful stuff in that article, thanks for posting it.
As I was reading, it occurred to me (though I'm sure the thought is not original to me) that part of what makes most of the big tech companies bullshit is that they don't make or pay for any of the content that people come to them for. They've figured out how to extract all the money before it gets to the people who are creating the stuff that makes their services useful.
As a result, they have a giant firehose of money that they don't know what to do with other than try to come up with more ways to extract money from people creating stuff. But they're already extracting all the money, so another ten chat apps can only suck from a lake that's already being sucked dry.
Why is Google getting shittier? In part it's because Google has made the whole Internet shittier by sucking out all the money. The only way you can make money on Google's Internet is by being hyper-focused on sucking up the last remaining drops of cash. And people who are doing that make a shitty Internet.
How many of Google's we-both-know-it's-bullshit employees would be happier if they were being paid a reasonable salary to do investigative reporting or write opinion columns or review products or make art or any of the thousand other things that keep us coming back to the Internet?
As imperfect as Youtube is, maybe the reason that I'm spending more time there compared to any other Google product is that at least some of the Youtube firehose of money goes directly to the people making stuff. Youtube does it in a way that burns out creators, sends people down extremist pipelines, promotes clickbait, etc., etc., but at least they're not, like Google search, sucking out all the money before handing you over to your destination.
It's like Google is a taxi service which sucks all the money out of people before they get to any venues, and then we wonder why all the venues are getting shittier.
posted by clawsoon at 6:43 AM on January 1 [49 favorites]
As I was reading, it occurred to me (though I'm sure the thought is not original to me) that part of what makes most of the big tech companies bullshit is that they don't make or pay for any of the content that people come to them for. They've figured out how to extract all the money before it gets to the people who are creating the stuff that makes their services useful.
As a result, they have a giant firehose of money that they don't know what to do with other than try to come up with more ways to extract money from people creating stuff. But they're already extracting all the money, so another ten chat apps can only suck from a lake that's already being sucked dry.
Why is Google getting shittier? In part it's because Google has made the whole Internet shittier by sucking out all the money. The only way you can make money on Google's Internet is by being hyper-focused on sucking up the last remaining drops of cash. And people who are doing that make a shitty Internet.
How many of Google's we-both-know-it's-bullshit employees would be happier if they were being paid a reasonable salary to do investigative reporting or write opinion columns or review products or make art or any of the thousand other things that keep us coming back to the Internet?
As imperfect as Youtube is, maybe the reason that I'm spending more time there compared to any other Google product is that at least some of the Youtube firehose of money goes directly to the people making stuff. Youtube does it in a way that burns out creators, sends people down extremist pipelines, promotes clickbait, etc., etc., but at least they're not, like Google search, sucking out all the money before handing you over to your destination.
It's like Google is a taxi service which sucks all the money out of people before they get to any venues, and then we wonder why all the venues are getting shittier.
posted by clawsoon at 6:43 AM on January 1 [49 favorites]
many who joined the industry did so precisely because they thought that their work would be useful
Maybe at some point there were some people for whom this was a primary motivation. By the time I moved to the Bay Area in 1998 the “industry” was already filling up with people who were motivated, like most people who have to work for a living, by the promise of a better paycheck.
Now to finish the article, but I do question that part of the premise.
posted by aspersioncast at 8:26 AM on January 1 [8 favorites]
Maybe at some point there were some people for whom this was a primary motivation. By the time I moved to the Bay Area in 1998 the “industry” was already filling up with people who were motivated, like most people who have to work for a living, by the promise of a better paycheck.
Now to finish the article, but I do question that part of the premise.
posted by aspersioncast at 8:26 AM on January 1 [8 favorites]
Whoa. I read this then the crowdsourcing article linked from there (not linked here so as not to derail) now I need a walk in the woods.
I do think the article is a bit too broadbrush but some of it surely sticks. I have not had a 190k noshow job but the internet and open source gave me more earning potential than I would have had otherwise. Some earnings came from good faith but busted startups, others from clients who had information they thought was worth something, even if the tech wasn’t rocket science. None of it was hide-in-the-cut and cash checks or cynical in any way, and I have toiled for ages with no payoff as well.
Anyway it all makes my head spin as the world offers vastly different rewards for people regardless of value to the world, let alone to the org what’s paying.
After my walk I hope to revisit this thread. Thanks chavenet.
posted by drowsy at 8:56 AM on January 1 [9 favorites]
I do think the article is a bit too broadbrush but some of it surely sticks. I have not had a 190k noshow job but the internet and open source gave me more earning potential than I would have had otherwise. Some earnings came from good faith but busted startups, others from clients who had information they thought was worth something, even if the tech wasn’t rocket science. None of it was hide-in-the-cut and cash checks or cynical in any way, and I have toiled for ages with no payoff as well.
Anyway it all makes my head spin as the world offers vastly different rewards for people regardless of value to the world, let alone to the org what’s paying.
After my walk I hope to revisit this thread. Thanks chavenet.
posted by drowsy at 8:56 AM on January 1 [9 favorites]
Technology = tools. Tools help us to make things, achieve things, do things, better, faster, etc. I can remember a time when going to trade shows, there would be at least one thing there, that made me stop, stare, and wonder. No more. Back in the late 70’s, when personal computers took off, a few of us wondered what would happen when computers just became a commodity like toaster ovens? Innovation would probably stop… People would still buy them, but the excitement would end. Computers now, I include phones in that mix, as well as any so-called smart devices like TVs, are primarily used to consume media, a very passive activity. People once thought that the personal computer would unleash creativity for everyone, but that was just wishful thinking. What we got was advertising everywhere. Or fees to pay to avoid it. Where is the real innovation? Where are the things that will make us sit up and say Wow? And I’m not talking about AI assisted toaster ovens. Yes, the tech industry is bullshit, since by popular proclamation, advertising is bullshit. Capitalism ultimately eats itself…
For reference, the last tech thing that made me say Wow, was VCV Rack, a desktop modular synth application that came out a number of years ago. It’s free. No ads.
posted by njohnson23 at 9:13 AM on January 1 [9 favorites]
For reference, the last tech thing that made me say Wow, was VCV Rack, a desktop modular synth application that came out a number of years ago. It’s free. No ads.
posted by njohnson23 at 9:13 AM on January 1 [9 favorites]
All Out of Lulz: This article extrapolates the unique internal politics of one company (Google) to an entire industry
Meta, ex-Twitter, Alphabet/Google, Amazon all sell advertising, that's the firehose of money, without guarantees that there's a better match-up of adverts converting punters to customers. That's some bullshit.
Elon Musk cut X’s workforce by 80 percent without crippling the platform’s fundamental usability.
There's a number of things like this in the piece. The redundancies affected caching and caused outages, then removed moderation that protected a swathe of users and turned the platform's fundamental usability into manually blocking horrible people. That's some bullshit.
the problem, at its core, lies in the business model of the platform economy, one that depends not on productive labor but on rents
Technology as tools won't seek rents, even operating system updates are free-to-users while office software is a web subscription. The only good unicorn is a rent-seeking unicorn. That's some bullshit.
posted by k3ninho at 10:08 AM on January 1 [15 favorites]
Meta, ex-Twitter, Alphabet/Google, Amazon all sell advertising, that's the firehose of money, without guarantees that there's a better match-up of adverts converting punters to customers. That's some bullshit.
Elon Musk cut X’s workforce by 80 percent without crippling the platform’s fundamental usability.
There's a number of things like this in the piece. The redundancies affected caching and caused outages, then removed moderation that protected a swathe of users and turned the platform's fundamental usability into manually blocking horrible people. That's some bullshit.
the problem, at its core, lies in the business model of the platform economy, one that depends not on productive labor but on rents
Technology as tools won't seek rents, even operating system updates are free-to-users while office software is a web subscription. The only good unicorn is a rent-seeking unicorn. That's some bullshit.
posted by k3ninho at 10:08 AM on January 1 [15 favorites]
obligatory link:
Silicon Valley - Making the World a Better Place
posted by philip-random at 10:51 AM on January 1 [3 favorites]
Silicon Valley - Making the World a Better Place
posted by philip-random at 10:51 AM on January 1 [3 favorites]
I literally step over people who sleep on the street in near freezing weather. I got not very far into this article before I became so angry I couldn't see straight. Fucking hell.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 11:36 AM on January 1 [8 favorites]
posted by kittens for breakfast at 11:36 AM on January 1 [8 favorites]
Different industry, different time, different legal context, but: just-sold U.S. Steel is a long-term view of what it looks like when companies like today’s tech giants operate as monopolies.
posted by migurski at 11:47 AM on January 1 [4 favorites]
posted by migurski at 11:47 AM on January 1 [4 favorites]
Migurski this article is magnificent. Thought exercise: FAANG becomes US Interwebs. 🤔
posted by apathy at 12:20 PM on January 1 [2 favorites]
posted by apathy at 12:20 PM on January 1 [2 favorites]
> Anyway it all makes my head spin as the world offers vastly different rewards for people regardless of value to the world, let alone to the org what’s paying.
I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.
- Ecclesiastes 9:11
posted by Aardvark Cheeselog at 12:25 PM on January 1 [11 favorites]
I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.
- Ecclesiastes 9:11
posted by Aardvark Cheeselog at 12:25 PM on January 1 [11 favorites]
A difference between US Steel and monopolies of its heyday is that investors absolutely expect these companies to produce another blockbuster product of the kind that made them a monopoly - so all this performative "innovation", acquisition, and evaluation is mandatory. A competent private owner of Twitter really could have reduced the workforce and had incredible profits - but not incredible growth.
That logic, to me, is the essence of what distinguishes capitalism from other market-based economies: profit is boring, growth is all.
posted by McBearclaw at 12:57 PM on January 1 [5 favorites]
That logic, to me, is the essence of what distinguishes capitalism from other market-based economies: profit is boring, growth is all.
posted by McBearclaw at 12:57 PM on January 1 [5 favorites]
Our company has similar perverse incentives. We are full time but are billable to clients so the urge to bill is strong. This results in people putting in essentially “no show, no work” roles in contracts so they can bill for things like the 3 hours of meetings, at least, I have in a day that are essential but not client billable. On top of that if I have 4-5 projects billing projects itself a chore, that oddly isn’t billable.
There were something like 21 people (no kidding) on pre-sales internal calls and only 2-3 people said anything. I realized managers like dumping people on these calls to keep them looking billable. We also have a very strict approval process for new sales that requires and hours of internal meetings that aren’t billable and the 19 people who do nothing slink away. This is perverse in itself as the net good is that it prevents someone from aggressively selling something we cannot deliver on but at the same time kills sales by its slowness and sticking to the half dozen platforms we support. This in turns leading us always to recommend the same thing: basically React plus Bootstrap. No matter the requirements where a few static pages can be put up in a few days. This is incredibly simplified version of what I do but you get the picture. I work for an incredibly large organization so the fact Google has similar problems does not surprise me even if they manifest itself in completely different ways. People I work with definitely play the “billable 100% of the time” which kills sales because people don’t want to work on things they can’t bill for. They’re afraid of showing up on a spreadsheet that shows they aren’t billable.
In the end it comes down to being a “boy’s club” which I mean in a way that says there’s a clique that keeps you in or out. I might not be billable but I get things done that my boss previously had to do themselves. I’m sure Google is the same way. When you get to a certain size people don’t do much but go through the motions which is why you hear of people who do nothing for whatever huge salary. You have people that play the game enough to look good on paper and probably actually get real things done. Thats just how work is. It is extremely hard to quantify success down to the person level. At a philosophical level this ends up meaning that it is tied much like Wall Street to a conservative ideal of Protestant work ethic, which is tied tight with a whole lot of their issues (Ivy League, sexism, classism, discrimination, etc).
On a tangential note it does mention that the platform is set and how X survived with 80% workforce reduction with some minor outages and caching problems. I find software tends to have a 3-5 year life cycle where you can put it in maintenance mode and decide to keep it there or redo it. This is a very common theme outside of the tech market. You’d be surprised how many large companies rely on this with monopolistic practices.
posted by geoff. at 12:58 PM on January 1 [7 favorites]
There were something like 21 people (no kidding) on pre-sales internal calls and only 2-3 people said anything. I realized managers like dumping people on these calls to keep them looking billable. We also have a very strict approval process for new sales that requires and hours of internal meetings that aren’t billable and the 19 people who do nothing slink away. This is perverse in itself as the net good is that it prevents someone from aggressively selling something we cannot deliver on but at the same time kills sales by its slowness and sticking to the half dozen platforms we support. This in turns leading us always to recommend the same thing: basically React plus Bootstrap. No matter the requirements where a few static pages can be put up in a few days. This is incredibly simplified version of what I do but you get the picture. I work for an incredibly large organization so the fact Google has similar problems does not surprise me even if they manifest itself in completely different ways. People I work with definitely play the “billable 100% of the time” which kills sales because people don’t want to work on things they can’t bill for. They’re afraid of showing up on a spreadsheet that shows they aren’t billable.
In the end it comes down to being a “boy’s club” which I mean in a way that says there’s a clique that keeps you in or out. I might not be billable but I get things done that my boss previously had to do themselves. I’m sure Google is the same way. When you get to a certain size people don’t do much but go through the motions which is why you hear of people who do nothing for whatever huge salary. You have people that play the game enough to look good on paper and probably actually get real things done. Thats just how work is. It is extremely hard to quantify success down to the person level. At a philosophical level this ends up meaning that it is tied much like Wall Street to a conservative ideal of Protestant work ethic, which is tied tight with a whole lot of their issues (Ivy League, sexism, classism, discrimination, etc).
On a tangential note it does mention that the platform is set and how X survived with 80% workforce reduction with some minor outages and caching problems. I find software tends to have a 3-5 year life cycle where you can put it in maintenance mode and decide to keep it there or redo it. This is a very common theme outside of the tech market. You’d be surprised how many large companies rely on this with monopolistic practices.
posted by geoff. at 12:58 PM on January 1 [7 favorites]
McBearclaw: A difference between US Steel and monopolies of its heyday is that investors absolutely expect these companies to produce another blockbuster product of the kind that made them a monopoly
I wonder if this is still true. It's certainly the expectation from VC investors, but do all of the institutional investors who keep Google et al. at the top of the S&P 500 care about innovation so long as the money keeps rolling in? If Google has a US Steel-style 120 year run, will today's investors care about the lack of innovation? If it starts spraying that firehose of money directly back at investors instead of at employees, won't that put smiles on some investors' faces?
posted by clawsoon at 1:38 PM on January 1 [1 favorite]
I wonder if this is still true. It's certainly the expectation from VC investors, but do all of the institutional investors who keep Google et al. at the top of the S&P 500 care about innovation so long as the money keeps rolling in? If Google has a US Steel-style 120 year run, will today's investors care about the lack of innovation? If it starts spraying that firehose of money directly back at investors instead of at employees, won't that put smiles on some investors' faces?
posted by clawsoon at 1:38 PM on January 1 [1 favorite]
A difference between US Steel and monopolies of its heyday is that investors absolutely expect these companies to produce another blockbuster product of the kind that made them a monopoly - so all this performative "innovation", acquisition, and evaluation is mandatory.Absolutely. The article covers Google but at FB one of the groups with high visibility across the company was called New Product Experiences (NPE), similar to G’s Area 120 mentioned in the article. NPE had a mandate to figure out new stuff that could become blockbusters. I don’t think you can re-create an Instagram or Whatsapp inside a large company even if you emulate the scrappy startup environment just due to the proximity of a big CEO in your reporting chain. Instead, all these companies are seeing the looming threat of an antitrust realignment on the horizon and its impacts in failed acquisitions like Adobe / Figma and I think it’s freaking them out. Some of the legal & rhetorical approaches taken by U.S. Steel are not available to them.
posted by migurski at 1:41 PM on January 1 [4 favorites]
Different industry, different time, different legal context, but: just-sold U.S. Steel is a long-term view of what it looks like when companies like today’s tech giants operate as monopolies.
Interesting article, particularly since it seems to tell the story of a company that operates as if it's a monopoly, but is in fact, not a monopoly: competitors chip away at its dominance for decades with innovations. 35% market share by 1941 is respectable, but a shadow of its former self, and still dwindling. The immediate post war years might be considered monopoly by nation, but that would be something even the most liberal anti monopoly American court would have trouble giving a fuck about. What's interesting is how anti monopoly sentiment adapts. Originally to protect consumers from monopolistic effects, more recently to protect competitors from monopoly dominance, now seemingly to protect monopolies from themselves. When Google (or MS or Facebook) start asking for bailouts, you know we've come full circle.
posted by 2N2222 at 2:06 PM on January 1 [4 favorites]
Interesting article, particularly since it seems to tell the story of a company that operates as if it's a monopoly, but is in fact, not a monopoly: competitors chip away at its dominance for decades with innovations. 35% market share by 1941 is respectable, but a shadow of its former self, and still dwindling. The immediate post war years might be considered monopoly by nation, but that would be something even the most liberal anti monopoly American court would have trouble giving a fuck about. What's interesting is how anti monopoly sentiment adapts. Originally to protect consumers from monopolistic effects, more recently to protect competitors from monopoly dominance, now seemingly to protect monopolies from themselves. When Google (or MS or Facebook) start asking for bailouts, you know we've come full circle.
posted by 2N2222 at 2:06 PM on January 1 [4 favorites]
clawsoon - it's certainly possible. I've been working for companies beholden to VC, so I definitely see the world through that lens. But Apple, Google, Microsoft and others are each sitting on $100+ billion of cash reserves and pay basically squat in dividends, which investors could certainly demand. But I think they're avoiding it through a combination of cultivating the expectation of the next grand breakthrough and... stock buybacks. But maybe for this purpose the stock buybacks are equivalent to dividends in terms of converting profits into shareholder gains? Not sure.
posted by McBearclaw at 2:09 PM on January 1 [1 favorite]
posted by McBearclaw at 2:09 PM on January 1 [1 favorite]
McBearclaw: But maybe for this purpose the stock buybacks are equivalent to dividends in terms of converting profits into shareholder gains? Not sure.
As I understand it, capital gains and stock buybacks were more tax-efficient for investors in the US than dividends for a long time, but I'm not sure what the situation is now.
posted by clawsoon at 2:20 PM on January 1 [2 favorites]
As I understand it, capital gains and stock buybacks were more tax-efficient for investors in the US than dividends for a long time, but I'm not sure what the situation is now.
posted by clawsoon at 2:20 PM on January 1 [2 favorites]
Research is tax-efficient. Also, the failure rates of new products for google/amazon/etc are not anything out of line vs the rest of the industry because innovation is hard.
Look at this chart again: millions invested in electric car manufacturing and design for GMC Hummer to sell 17 vehicles in California through the 3rd quarter of 2023. Or Volvo to sell 7 S-90 Recharges. Yeah, I'm sure the rest of the world is pushing those into double or maybe even triple digits.
posted by The_Vegetables at 3:28 PM on January 1 [2 favorites]
Look at this chart again: millions invested in electric car manufacturing and design for GMC Hummer to sell 17 vehicles in California through the 3rd quarter of 2023. Or Volvo to sell 7 S-90 Recharges. Yeah, I'm sure the rest of the world is pushing those into double or maybe even triple digits.
posted by The_Vegetables at 3:28 PM on January 1 [2 favorites]
In an anonymous online poll on how many “focused hours of work” software engineers put in each day
That sounds like something that maybe doesn’t mean exactly what it’s framed to mean?
posted by atoxyl at 7:47 PM on January 1 [3 favorites]
That sounds like something that maybe doesn’t mean exactly what it’s framed to mean?
posted by atoxyl at 7:47 PM on January 1 [3 favorites]
This article is mostly about internal dysfunction at Google. It's helpful to discredit the myth of tech company productivity, but I'm not sure it does a great job extrapolating things to the broader economy. Productivity itself is a slippery concept because it's just a ratio (output over input) and both of those concepts can be measured in a bunch of different ways and mean different things.
I'm also a bit wary of the 'bullshit jobs' concept, in particular how it blends together people's feelings about their own jobs with broader critiques of capitalism ("well, obviously this sector is entirely bullshit"). Again, it's helpful for deconstructing myths but I'm not sure how far it gets us in terms of actually thinking about how we might want society to function. What does a non-bullshit tech sector look like? How does value flow around it in a way that works?
posted by ropeladder at 10:46 PM on January 1 [6 favorites]
I'm also a bit wary of the 'bullshit jobs' concept, in particular how it blends together people's feelings about their own jobs with broader critiques of capitalism ("well, obviously this sector is entirely bullshit"). Again, it's helpful for deconstructing myths but I'm not sure how far it gets us in terms of actually thinking about how we might want society to function. What does a non-bullshit tech sector look like? How does value flow around it in a way that works?
posted by ropeladder at 10:46 PM on January 1 [6 favorites]
In the end it comes down to being a “boy’s club” which I mean in a way that says there’s a clique that keeps you in or out.
There must be in-groups whom HR protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom HR binds but does not protect.
posted by flabdablet at 11:35 PM on January 1 [8 favorites]
There must be in-groups whom HR protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom HR binds but does not protect.
posted by flabdablet at 11:35 PM on January 1 [8 favorites]
The annoying thing is that it seems working at Google doesn't really mean you are magically specially talented, and might even have atrophied from the experience. But that big G on your resume virtually guarantees a response to any resume you send out when looking for new work. Sigh...
posted by keep_evolving at 8:01 AM on January 2 [1 favorite]
posted by keep_evolving at 8:01 AM on January 2 [1 favorite]
> There must be in-groups whom HR protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom HR binds but does not protect.
And that's why you can't spell "union" with "HR".
posted by AlSweigart at 9:27 AM on January 2 [1 favorite]
And that's why you can't spell "union" with "HR".
posted by AlSweigart at 9:27 AM on January 2 [1 favorite]
There's no question that the tech giants are now at an inflection point. It doesn't seem that much different from other transformative industries like fossil fuels, telegraph/telephone or railroads, when the innovators and first movers ended up with monopoly positions.
I thought the article was a bit overwrought about "rent". Most users get the benefits of these internet platforms essentially for free, and the rents are paid by advertisers who are still happy to do so. (A CEO has to publicly tell them to go fuck themselves before they consider leaving a troubled platform) .When advertisers themselves are broadly disgruntled about paying the rent, that's when you'll see real change.
I'm dissatisfied with the current state of Google search, and the fact that despite the reams of data they allegedly have on me, they still serve up inappropriate ads that annoy or disgust me. (wtf? How is this effective advertising?). Nonetheless, there are still several Google products that have made my world better (eg Maps). I'm close to the point that in return for better versions of their useful tools, and a much better experience with ads, I would consider paying like $5 or $10 a month. I wonder if Facebook users would consider the same, for a better, more controllable experience.
The promise of the new platforms to inspire and reward content providers has not been delivered upon, overall (I include ebooks here). There's lots of new opportunity and content provided altruistically, in all sorts of interests, hobbies, etc. And the big platforms facilitate the near zero cost of publishing and sharing it,. But it seems that the only paying content growth area is in fluff ("influencers") and in crap aggregations tailored for SEO. Stuff that AI can now churn out at scale.
posted by Artful Codger at 9:42 AM on January 2 [1 favorite]
I thought the article was a bit overwrought about "rent". Most users get the benefits of these internet platforms essentially for free, and the rents are paid by advertisers who are still happy to do so. (A CEO has to publicly tell them to go fuck themselves before they consider leaving a troubled platform) .When advertisers themselves are broadly disgruntled about paying the rent, that's when you'll see real change.
I'm dissatisfied with the current state of Google search, and the fact that despite the reams of data they allegedly have on me, they still serve up inappropriate ads that annoy or disgust me. (wtf? How is this effective advertising?). Nonetheless, there are still several Google products that have made my world better (eg Maps). I'm close to the point that in return for better versions of their useful tools, and a much better experience with ads, I would consider paying like $5 or $10 a month. I wonder if Facebook users would consider the same, for a better, more controllable experience.
The promise of the new platforms to inspire and reward content providers has not been delivered upon, overall (I include ebooks here). There's lots of new opportunity and content provided altruistically, in all sorts of interests, hobbies, etc. And the big platforms facilitate the near zero cost of publishing and sharing it,. But it seems that the only paying content growth area is in fluff ("influencers") and in crap aggregations tailored for SEO. Stuff that AI can now churn out at scale.
posted by Artful Codger at 9:42 AM on January 2 [1 favorite]
Artful Codger: I thought the article was a bit overwrought about "rent". Most users get the benefits of these internet platforms essentially for free, and the rents are paid by advertisers who are still happy to do so.
A major change, though, is what advertising was paying for then compared to what it's paying for now, especially with Google search. Advertising used to pay for newsrooms and TV shows and TV Guide. Now it is only paying for TV Guide, and TV Guide is making huge profits, and there's no newsroom anymore.
(That's an analogy, obviously.)
posted by clawsoon at 4:02 PM on January 2 [1 favorite]
A major change, though, is what advertising was paying for then compared to what it's paying for now, especially with Google search. Advertising used to pay for newsrooms and TV shows and TV Guide. Now it is only paying for TV Guide, and TV Guide is making huge profits, and there's no newsroom anymore.
(That's an analogy, obviously.)
posted by clawsoon at 4:02 PM on January 2 [1 favorite]
U.S. Steel
Funny thing I learned when I read this story: The stock ticker for US Steel is "X".
I'm surprised Elon didn't buy it just for that. Imagine if the Everything App also made steel.
posted by clawsoon at 4:04 PM on January 2 [3 favorites]
Funny thing I learned when I read this story: The stock ticker for US Steel is "X".
I'm surprised Elon didn't buy it just for that. Imagine if the Everything App also made steel.
posted by clawsoon at 4:04 PM on January 2 [3 favorites]
Someone who works at a big tech place told me the nap pods and special cafeterias are not for the workers; it's just to show visitors, they're not allowed any of the perks.
posted by pelvicsorcery at 4:24 PM on January 3 [1 favorite]
posted by pelvicsorcery at 4:24 PM on January 3 [1 favorite]
Potemkin nap pods
posted by flabdablet at 9:36 PM on January 3 [2 favorites]
posted by flabdablet at 9:36 PM on January 3 [2 favorites]
Someone who works at a big tech place told me the nap pods and special cafeterias are not for the workers
IDK about the nap pods, never seen one, but the cafeterias across Silicon Valley are definitely used by engineers. Where the line might be drawn is Independent Contractors not allowed access to IRS designated employee perks like free food. One place I know of gets around this by charging for food at the cafe, and issuing employees coupons for free meals.
posted by pwnguin at 10:51 AM on January 7 [1 favorite]
IDK about the nap pods, never seen one, but the cafeterias across Silicon Valley are definitely used by engineers. Where the line might be drawn is Independent Contractors not allowed access to IRS designated employee perks like free food. One place I know of gets around this by charging for food at the cafe, and issuing employees coupons for free meals.
posted by pwnguin at 10:51 AM on January 7 [1 favorite]
« Older Screamy New Year! | The Piper at the Gates of Dawn Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by All Out of Lulz at 5:41 AM on January 1 [11 favorites]