Personally, I don't buy the idea that Facebook was ever benevolent, once its founders took it commercial. Zuckerberg said at one point that FB is about advertising. How could that point not have been obvious after it stopped being a campus dating app? I would wager it always was, even before. But still. Google's purpose was originally neutral. FB's never was.
I don't know much about its early history but I think you have a point. Wynn-Williams does claim that she herself was very idealistic though, when she joined, and by her own account, at the start there was a push to be more neutral. For example, an organ donation scheme was overruled on the principle the company shouldn't be pushing any causes on its subscribers. But it does feel like the difference in superficial style of tech companies concealed the fact that they were ultimately going to act as ruthlessly as any other corporation.
I want to say that Zuckerberg attending Trump's inauguration is pretty huge evidence that Mr. Z was never about anything but scoring for himself. The other thought is Keynesian: Isn't FB a natural monopoly, making it a pretty good and obvious candidate for the "somewhat comprehensive socialization of investment" list? I would love to see public postal services directly compete against it.
Natural monopoly, and on a global scale. I think all economists of whatever school would say that natural monopolies need strong regulation at least but how to ensure that? In the UK, the post office scandal over many years involved another national monopoly, a much smaller, more traditional one, and the regulators/legal system/politicians were pretty ineffective. (The most impact was from a TV show, Mr Bates and the Post Office - the power of drama!.)
Nice to see a mention of Katie Fforde! I too think her first novel was her best. She’s become more and more formulaic over the years. Though I enjoyed her recent one set in the Caribbean, where she has an unexpected family connection that I wrote about in my post about Dominica.
So many recommendations in here. Thank you!
Personally, I don't buy the idea that Facebook was ever benevolent, once its founders took it commercial. Zuckerberg said at one point that FB is about advertising. How could that point not have been obvious after it stopped being a campus dating app? I would wager it always was, even before. But still. Google's purpose was originally neutral. FB's never was.
I don't know much about its early history but I think you have a point. Wynn-Williams does claim that she herself was very idealistic though, when she joined, and by her own account, at the start there was a push to be more neutral. For example, an organ donation scheme was overruled on the principle the company shouldn't be pushing any causes on its subscribers. But it does feel like the difference in superficial style of tech companies concealed the fact that they were ultimately going to act as ruthlessly as any other corporation.
I want to say that Zuckerberg attending Trump's inauguration is pretty huge evidence that Mr. Z was never about anything but scoring for himself. The other thought is Keynesian: Isn't FB a natural monopoly, making it a pretty good and obvious candidate for the "somewhat comprehensive socialization of investment" list? I would love to see public postal services directly compete against it.
Natural monopoly, and on a global scale. I think all economists of whatever school would say that natural monopolies need strong regulation at least but how to ensure that? In the UK, the post office scandal over many years involved another national monopoly, a much smaller, more traditional one, and the regulators/legal system/politicians were pretty ineffective. (The most impact was from a TV show, Mr Bates and the Post Office - the power of drama!.)
Nice to see a mention of Katie Fforde! I too think her first novel was her best. She’s become more and more formulaic over the years. Though I enjoyed her recent one set in the Caribbean, where she has an unexpected family connection that I wrote about in my post about Dominica.
Oh will take a look at your post … Living Dangerously was a really charming read which I've returned to over the years.