[baron816]

Whether that wealth is going to the top 1% or to the top .01% doesn't matter so much as far as the welfare of the general public is concerned. I think you could argue that the products that these tech companies are bringing to market are what is really benefiting the general public, much more than any investment returns ever could. And if the current model of investing is most efficient--in terms of generating new products and delivering them to market--then it is better for the public.

[j7ake]

What is the public benefit of snapchat ?

[vecter]

Seriously? People use it as a form of communication. It makes people feel closer to their friends. That has enormous value.

[jakubp]

So this is interesting. You may feel closer to people you haven't seen for a while when they are always "with" you on Snapchat -- I have certainly experienced that with people I don't talk to often or people who live on another continent.

But then again, I can't shake the feeling that this is more about fun than really being close. I remember having close friends in high school and at the university. We spent many hours a day together for several years. Can't fake that, and I doubt anything like that will be born through Snapchat or similar tools.

You sound quite certain that it has value. However, some claim that "communication" through technology can also alienate people. Some say it's a bit more shallow, that it doesn't have the same feel as actually talking to someone or even touching them for a second or two (really important for bonding).

Value is not always clear. Forgive me a drastic comparison, but factory farming strikes me as similar: it brought cheap, tasty meat to a great number of people, but the jury is still out on whether it's good.

[lordnacho]

> But then again, I can't shake the feeling that this is more about fun than really being close. I remember having close friends in high school and at the university. We spent many hours a day together for several years. Can't fake that, and I doubt anything like that will be born through Snapchat or similar tools.

I've got a whole bunch of friends whom I know mainly from online interaction. Surely that's a new class of friendship, which is useful?

[CodeWriter23]

Try going offline for 2-3 months and see what happens. See how many of those people are real friends who call/email you, or even try to message you through your social media venue of choice.

My recent experience going cold turkey from Facebook revealed 1 friend who noticed my absence and reached out to me.

[jug]

I think there are disadvantages from social networks in the long term as people isolate themselves and allow them to take the place of physical connections, which they don't. But that their advantages from bringing friends to each other is at the same time often without a doubt beneficial. A virtual connection is better than none at all, and I know I would not have the lasting friendships I would have had today if it were not for social networks.

I guess in a perfect world, people would understand the benefits but also fallacies and balance their use of these networks. That's the way I think we could get the most value out of them without exposing ourselves to their issues too much.

[bnjms]

Snap Chat is by far the most social of the "social" media applications.

You really have to see how adolescents use it differently from adults to appreciate this. There is a sort of additional language to it in a similar vein to how we all used AIM and its ilk back in the day. For adolescents, who spend time together as you describe, they spend more time sharing experiences over SC augmenting their continuous in person interactions.

We are in danger of speaking past each other regarding the group and type of connection. But I absolutely believe SC is capable of Bri going people together. I do not believe that about any other Social platform. (Excepting blogs and podcasts but those are very different.)

[lmm]

If you define "real" friendship as spending hours in each other's physical presence then of course you're going to say snapchat isn't "real" - that's just circular reasoning though.

[chii]

> the jury is still out on whether it's good.

i think the jury is in on that - the market being the jury. The overwhelming majority of purchasers decide through no uncertain terms, that factory farming is the way to go.

There are some people who have moral reservations against factory farming, but i believe those numbers are low (despite how loud their voices are). A silent majority (especially through less wealth countries) agree by voting with their wallets.

[j7ake]

What about the tobacco industry? Is it wrong that government set regulations to tax cigarettes and limit advertising?

What about the gambling industry?

I feel in a few decades, this social media will be considered harmful and will be regulated and possibly taxed.

[RodericDay]

Snapchat adds value in the way meth adds value.

[B1FF_PSUVM]

With a whiff of ouija board.

[cft]

Of Facebook?

[eternalban]

That's a bit too clever.

The issue is whether a society that has mutated to a system funneling meaningful wealth gains to 0.01% of its members is on the path to long term health or on the certain path to some sort of catastrophic system failure with a generous dolling out of collatoral damage to the 99.99% that were on the receiving end of "value added" goods and services [only].

[baron816]

True. I don't know if this system is really any better than the system of the 90s. We do know that that one led to a market crash and the current one hasn't (yet). But we very well could have more innovation if companies still IPOed early. I really don't know.

My comment was intended to establish a yardstick to judge them by. Society doesn't value free market enterprise because it's great at enriching a small number of people. We don't like that Dropbox exists because it turned its founders and investors into millionaires and billionaires. We value capitalism because it encourages people to bring new products to market. If society's goal was to enrich a small number of people, then we should've stuck with feudalism. But society wants to enrich society.

[eternalban]

Market crashes of 80s and 90s is not even remotely what I am talking about. Who cares about that.

If a tiny tiny subset of a society has established a system where they are the analog of "judge, jury, and executioner" of what sort of mind products are developed, supported, and made de facto 'necessity of modern life' (such as Google's) then let's stop pretending and call it what is it: an authoritarian system that (ab)uses market mechanisms