I love when venture capitalists claim their scam tech solutions are actually designed to help workers.
DAOs, like blockchain, are a solution in search of a problem they can be applied to and so its backers are constantly making pitches for how it can transform new areas of life.
The thread is funny because it gives a very brief overview of labor history, the decline of union membership (and responsibility of state policy and capital’s power), then some union criticisms before the solution: technology that ignores the politics but is vaguely empowering.
Yet we recently saw a concrete example of how the rhetoric around DAOs doesn’t reflect how it works in the real world with ConstitutionDAO, particularly that claims to escape centralization are a myth. vice.com/en/article/qjb…
Also one of the positive examples of DAO implementations she refers to is about getting more people into scammy, exploitative play-to-earn games? Like, come on. vice.com/en/article/3ab…
Personally, I think Li gets far too much credit for espousing bad ideas but framing them as though they’ll help the middle-class, “creators,” or now the labor movement.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Net neutrality is important, but it’s hardly the difference between Facebook “dominating” the internet or not; a reality you can see by looking at jurisdictions where net neutrality is in force. vice.com/en/article/epx…
Facebook and other major tech companies control a lot of the underlying infrastructure of the internet, from undersea cables to cloud storage. They also benefit from network effects and other forms of structural power that will continue to ensure their dominance.
I have to say, I’m getting really tired of these hyperbolic statements about tech policy that distort public understanding. Net neutrality will stop “domination,” Section 230 is the only thing that allows us to post online, crypto regulation is unprecedented “surveillance.”
Friedman’s argument is that governments can’t solve problems and instead we need to rely on the market and brilliant entrepreneurs like Elon Musk to save us. He constantly downplays the state’s role (on vaccines this time) and places his faith in tech and the market.
This isn’t new. If you go back to “Revenge of the Electric Car” in 2011, he says of EVs, “I do not believe this is a problem that is gonna be resolved by regulators and bureaucrats. This is a problem that’s gonna be solved by engineers, innovators, and entrepreneurs.” Bullshit.
People who advocate for NFTs, crypto, and web3 because they believe it holds the possibility of a decentralized web tend to ignore that technology alone isn’t going to change the path of tech’s development toward commercialization and concentration.
That argument is little more than an extension of the techno-determinism that formed a key part of the Californian Ideology and misidentified how change occurs by downplaying the importance of politics in favor of technology and the market.
Until you challenge the political economy that shapes tech’s development, it’s going to be difficult to have any notable alternative that diverges from the path that serves capital. That’s why the response needs to be political, not just technological.
This thread about Web 3 is a load of naive bullshit, but this is the key point.
Web 3 will not decentralize the web as its adherents say. Web 2.0 centralized the web to extract profit from it; Web 3 is about commercializing more digital activities to do the same.
Web 3 is not about empowering creators, builders, or any of the nice PR speak being deployed. It’s about making a way to monetize more of what happens online for the benefit of new and existing internet companies that will seek to monopolize these new markets.
I wrote a bit about Web 3 this piece for @_reallifemag back in July.
“Web3 is a technological solution that does not contend with how power is distributed in the real world.” reallifemag.com/reconnected/
I’m rereading Hubert Horan’s “Can Uber Ever Deliver?” series in its entirety, and it’s just so good. Absolutely nails the problems with Uber’s business model and why the arguments it makes (that media often repeats uncritically) are complete lies.
“Uber not only lacks the major cost advantage [over incumbents] … but actually has higher costs than traditional car service operators in every category, except for fuel and fees where no operator can achieve a cost advantage.” nakedcapitalism.com/2016/12/can-ub…
“Highlighting the app also implies that Uber is a ‘technology company’ that has completely ‘disrupted’ industry economics, and is not simply a traditional company like Domino’s Pizza that is utilizing smartphone ordering.” nakedcapitalism.com/2016/12/can-ub…