| > Provide services on top of the protocol? Adjacent to it? You can't, because those features would then not be available on said open protocol making these features another "serfdom". Or you'd have to add them to the protocol negating the differentiating factor. Niceties that don't break interoperability of data? > Ads that are relevant to the core group using your version of the site for the protocol? Wait until you hear how Twitter, Facebook and Youtube get monetised. > I'm sure business people would find many ways to monetise just like they have monetised an open protocol called "web". This is wishful thinking and does not form a coherent end-to-end strategy. > Don't start with this bullshit, it just makes the discussion become inflammatory, fuck off with that, please. Lets not start calling all businesses "technofeudalism" then. For someone as left leaning as Yanis he seems to enjoy all the "niceties" of capitalism just fine. I'll wait for his books to be open source. I'm sure this will happen any day now. |
I didn't, and it's clear what kind of business are defined as technofeudalists in the book which you haven't read. I recommend reading the book before having opinions about the subject, not headlines. It's clear you are having a knee-jerk reaction to something you didn't have intellectual curiosity to learn about.
> For someone as left leaning as Yanis he seems to enjoy all the "niceties" of capitalism just fine. I'll wait for his books to be open source. I'm sure this will happen any day now.
As usual comes the variation of the comment "leftists with iPhones" to shutdown discussion. This is a thought-terminating cliche, and a tired one at it. Don't use it, it just displays a lack of arguments.