[ajl666]

Seems obvious. I agree. However I think you're not going to get through to those with central planning biases. By which I mean, the notion that perfect planning can beat the market.

The Palace Economy central planner says, "give me wheat." The Soviet central planner says, "more steel comrades." The American style technocrat planner says, "we will tell you what you want and then deny market alternatives."

I think there's no reasoning with these people

[int_19h]

How, exactly, each person deciding on their own whether to look or not look for information on a particular subject matter translates to economic centralization? It's the other way around - the ads, with their push model, naturally produce centralization, which is why we have the duopoly this article is about.

[ajl666]

We're talking about advertising, not monopolies. That's your first fail.

Second, you present a false binary that we have either the duopoly, or the self-starting individual.

Marketing is a subset of Influence. Influence is a subset of the Arts. Arts being defined as non-axiomatic symbolic ordering.

You want to ignore all these distinctions, so you can stop annoying advertisers.

In the process of doing that, you either push advertising into the arts, or you kill the arts. Both are stupid. And that shows so are you.

You would dispense with the market, because you don't like that it's a meany.

You conflate because that's the standard tech scumbag method: you interpret 'restrictions' as 'damage' and route around it. Like a virus that crashes the whole system.

How would you find a book that didn't try to influence you? How would you find information that did not exist to influence? You are asking for an invisible pink unicorn. It does not exist. Your whole argument is stupid, sloppy, and sophomoric.

[ajl666]

The centralization has to do with cheap money. That appears to be a topic beyond your pay grade. Hacker News has a low skill base when it comes to economic understanding. VC funded enterprises all have a magic money aspect to them that proper entrepreneurs (bootstrappers) do not have. Your post reeks of it. That was not the issue.

You want to strawman my point, because...?

InCityDreams: "In a funny kind of way, I'd rather have unsolvable problems than be advertised at. If the problems actually need solving, ill go looking.

If I'm not looking, there's no problem (to be solved)."

Summary: "If I'm not looking, there's no problem (to be solved)."

Then Deltree replies:

"Newsflash: There are unknown, unknowns. The vast majority of the population, they don't even know there are solutions that would change their life.

E.g: In a world of 8,000,000,000 how many people know that there is Coursera which has top-level courses that can change their lives, improve productivity and make impact?.

"I know everything, don't tell me. I'll ask" is exactly the attitude that prevents learning (and prevents people from knowing about coursera). You are just advertising that personality to the rest of the world"

Summary: ""I know everything, don't tell me. I'll ask" is exactly the attitude that prevents learning."

Me: "Seems obvious. I agree. However I think you're not going to get through to those with central planning biases. By which I mean, the notion that perfect planning can beat the market. The Palace Economy central planner says, "give me wheat." The Soviet central planner says, "more steel comrades." The American style technocrat planner says, "we will tell you what you want and then deny market alternatives."

I think there's no reasoning with these people"

Summary: Yes, I know everything don't ask people can't be reasoned with. Same as Soviets or Palace economists. Same as American duopolies, which have gotten worse and stronger as government spending and share of national economy has increased. I took for granted that this is obvious, as others in the thread seemed to instinctively grasp this point.

Not you though.

Duopoly exists from too much government influence so solutions involving more government influence are doomed to failure.

Let's teach you to fish anyhow: the duopoly only mirrors the power structure of the government which allows it. More regulations to enforce what is advertising and what is art, means lawyers are then involved with case uses of the English language. An area that is a known incompetency for the trade.

Any individual who says, "I know everything. If I don't, I'll ask." How did they know anything in the first place? From the government schools? From their parents? Parents can't know everything. And AHA! Government schools are influencers and NOT AT ALL institutions of learning. Any learning done is incidental.

This is Kuhn's argument: you cannot revolutionize a flawed paradigm inside the flawed paradigm. If you prefer, you could say it's the Dunning-Kruger effect.

You're a jack@ss. I addressed my interlocutors arguments directly. You do not. Eff off, you MF.

EDIT: And as a concluding point, because you're so daft, this means that only influence from outside a power structure can possibly change the decision control flow. Ie Art, the child of which is applied symbol, the child of which is advertising.

[ajl666]

Hey downvoter. If the point is so weak, surely you can refute my moronic self with some cunning argument.

Why are so many information scientists afraid of information?

[tsimionescu]

You're not making any points, and your comments are written to be inflammatory (unlike deltree7's, who is clearly advancing the conversation, even if I don't agree with them).