← Back to context

Comment by EGreg

2 years ago

pg, yes Elon's $8 a month and now this has generated terrible optics. But like Donald Trump with politicians, isn't he just saying the quiet part out loud that most capitalists actually do? I think it is valuable to examine why we were against Donald Trump doing, but somehow in the broader picture everyone was doing it (e.g. Bill Clinton cracking down on "illegal immigrants", building border fences etc.) The important thing is the broader industry, not one player.

You want to see alternatives? Here is an alternative we've been building since 2011, it's a labor of love in which we invested over $1 million and 10 years. It is far, far more extensive than Mastodon and you can see below why that matters. Would you check it out? It's free and open source: https://github.com/Qbix/Platform

Not only have we built it, but we've interviewed a ton of people around the broader topics of capitalism and free speech. There is the idea that capitalism is the best system for promoting free speech, but that is not, in fact, the case. Just as one example of many, Sinclair Television told their anchors word-for-word what to say, and anyone who doesn't do what the employer says is fired and replaced by a different mouthpiece. Intellectual property, and other forms of ownership, are by their very definition designed to exclude people from using certain content / property in certain ways.

In fact, conservatives who bristled at Obama's "you didn't build it" used to say "I built it, I own it!" In that case, they should celebrate the way that Twitter and Facebook were privately managed. But many of them instead were calling for regulations to prevent them from doing just that. So which is it? I had an interview with Noam Chomsky twice about that, here is the latest: https://qbix.com/chomsky

If you allow me to bring up a taboo for a bit, I think it's important to bring it up on Hacker News. VCs as an industry, and YCombinator as part of that, specifically try to fund platforms that end up being managed by only a few people and extract rents. Most of them avoid funding open source platforms, which end up crowdfunding from the People (thanks to the JOBS act, for instance). Or from the Knight Foundation. Or Matt Mullenweg of Wordpress funding Matrix.org

VCs specifically tell you that they want you to "focus" on one feature, to "capture" enough of the market, and some of them (e.g. Peter Thiel) unabashedly proclaimed that "competition is for losers", build a monopoly. Zuck used to be a guy who turned down a $1M acquisition offer from Microsoft, and open sourced his code. He wanted to build Wirehog as a decentralized platform for the people (https://techcrunch.com/2010/05/26/wirehog/) Peter Thiel and Sean Parker "put a bullet in that thing" (their words) and groomed him to build a monopoly and extract rents. Zuck and Elon privately control the major PUBLIC forums we all use. And are we all better for it?

I think the work of Tim Berners-Lee, Linus Torvalds, Vitalik and others has benefitted the world far more and enabled trillions in new ideas (including Google, Facebook, Amazon) precisely because it was based around open source and protocols, and didn't prevent people and organizations from using it the way they wanted! Google, Amazon etc. could have never started as "keyword: Google" on AOL, for instance. Think about it.

Over the last decade I have been steadily drawn into the open source camp. My team and I started an open source alternative to Big Tech 10 years ago. We've applied to YC probably around 8 different times, as we kept growing and reaching 10 million users. We never even got to the interview. Such general-purpose ideas are just not something interesting to most VCs. It took MySQL, NGiNX, and other platforms 7-10 years before they got funded in a capitalist manner. By then, they'd taken over the world.

I'm sure there are exceptions, and YCombinator has recently started to fund open protocols and nonprofits - I'm glad to see it. For reference, our pitch to VCs for years had been along these lines:

https://qbix.com/deck.pdf

https://qbix.com/blog/2021/01/15/open-source-communities/

PS: For those who downvote, please write a response. After all, I've spent a decade and $1M of my own money putting together an alternative pg is looking for, seeing the need for it way before others. I give it away for free. All I ask is that you take a minute to write your own words in the conversation about why you disagree :)

PPS: I think the rule that you can downvote on HN to signal mere disagreement (as opposed to logical issues, dishonesty, etc.) is flawed. This is also a free speech issue ... on this site, if we want to be intellectually honest, we should at least downvote and then comment.

Re your PPS, maybe it’s not the platform but the users of the platform. Maybe Elon’s long game is to get the toxic users off the platform. It has a lot more value with diverse views (meaning ideas you disagree with) than the current echo chamber.

  • How are you defining toxic? I think antisemites and white supremacists qualify more often than not and yet their access to the platform was restored. Certainly we can't argue it was for the sake of free speech absolutism since that clearly isn't a value the new Twitter actually believes in. I know everyone wants to give the benefit of the doubt but I fail to see the "4D chess" strategy here if his goal really is to remove toxic users.

Other presidents built border walls and tried to put the brakes on immigration. They on the other hand didn't pretend we were under attack by an army of brown people who could only be defeated by destroying immigrants civil rights, punishing them by stealing their children, spending 10s of billions of additional funds building an unfeasible great wall of America, and ending democracy in order to install dear leader the only hope for the white race about to be replaced by brown people and liberals. This is to say context matters.

Trump didn't just say the quiet part out loud he turned it into a battle flag for hate and bigotry. Bringing him into the discussion basically ensures you wont have a good discussion on anything else its the current variation of Godwins Law.