I've been in mostly violent agreement with @smdiehl and others who call out cryptocurrency and its descendants for what they are—an end run around financial regulation at best, a massive fraud at worst. We all agree it makes no sense as a technology. But one thing worries me:
The culture around NFTs and other cryptowoo is genuinely vibrant and interesting. People have an enthusiasm and fearlessness about trying stuff that reminds the dinosaurs still among us of the early web days. This is especially true for young people just arriving on the scene.
The web itself, meanwhile, is sterile and moribund. There's nothing fun or weird around that doesn't get immediately co-opted, and there's certainly no DIY or collaborative culture of making cool things. You can play with the toys Google or Amazon gives you, big whoop.
The fact that the project at the heart of this pretty vibrant online culture is rotten makes it hard to accept that the social phenomenon around it is real and has depth and value. It's like watching animals come to a watering hole we know is filled with gasoline.
But this is also an indictment of the web. Why did we let it basically turn into TV? Where's the outlet for talented young people who want to turn the world upside down, but don't care to sign on to the giant scam that is cryptocurrency? We don't have a good answer for them.
And part of it is definitely that everyone today carries an incredible computer in their pocket and... you can't do anything with it. My first computer program at age 8 made an IBM desktop write profanity in an infinite loop. I wouldn't begin to know how to do that on an iPhone.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
To be clear, I am 100% on board with the possibility that Tether is a massive fraud. But there's a broader context of shenanigans here that is underreported. For example, consider the way Chinese stocks are listed on US exchanges.
When you buy a Chinese stock on a US exchange, you're not buying shares of that company, but a Variable Interest Entity incorporated in the Cayman Islands. This VIE is a smoke-and-mirrors entity that has no enforceable relationship with the Chinese giant, and is illegal in China.
But because it is convenient for everyone, this flimsy and very shady looking fiction has worked as a way to duct-tape Chinese companies to US capital markets. If you're a freshly arrived Martian just learning about money, it doesn't look much different from something like Tether
Also likely plenty of oil to be discovered under those ice sheets, so the defrosting of Antarctica will be a virtuous cycle.
Big Climatology doesn't want you to remember that global warming will not only unlock an entire new continent, but solve a whole host of currently intractable social problems. Want a more equitable Senate and an expanded Bay Area with lots of room for new homes? Burn that coal!
Campaign finance nerds, do you know of a way to track indirect Facebook spending by candidates? In other words, if my campaign committee pays ABC DIGITAL CONSULTING a million dollars and they spend half of that running Facebook ads, is their expenditure a public record?
We seem to be in an uncomfortable situation where the legislators who would potentially regulate Facebook spend heavily on the platform, but the amount of their expenditure is not a matter of public record because it is spent indirectly.
Because indirect expenditures aren't tracked by the FEC, the only source we have for what politicians spend on Facebook is... Facebook. This is part of the larger pattern where only Facebook has the data we would need to make informed decisions about regulating its activities.
This is a good point, and I would add to it that the internet as a system is robust *because* the protocols are ancient and crufty and not too reliable. Ancient is antifragile! Real systemic risk lurks in the cloud—a complex system of cruft that is designed to never, ever fail.
There is an inverse relationship between severity and rarity. As services like AWS become better at containing imaginable failures, the ones that do make it through to affect the whole system will be wilder and weirder, and unplanned for by definition. Complexity always wins.
At the same time, people will treat any platform that demonstrates 99.9999% reliability as having 100% reliability, recursively in layer after layer, laying the seeds for cascading disaster when probability catches up with them. Think about the 2008 bank crisis as an example.
Facebook insider testimony is valuable, but Congress should not make policy based on a former Facebook exec's recommendations any more than they would regulate cigarettes by listening to Big Tobacco. On Section 230, they should solicit testimony from what's left of the open web
The content of the whistleblowing so far has been the same critique that's been directed at Facebook by outside observers for many years. It's neither a story about evil monopolies or an evil CEO, but how we choose to embed ubiquitous communication and surveillance into our lives
This is a vital area for regulation, but previous efforts like the GDPR or the European cookie law show how important it is to get your thinking right if you don't want to make things worse. That requires expanding the conversation beyond a morality play about corporate greed.
To make the antimonopoly argument fairly, you would have to factor in how many times WhatsApp avoided downtime because it had Facebook resources behind it. Maybe that number is zero, maybe it's a lot.
Maybe half of humanity relying on a messenger app is a bigger monopoly issue than who bought that app.