He's not wrong. We're only a few years away from the big five in the US owning all of our land in one way or another. It's like a corporate showdown at this point. The government did nothing to stop this conglomeration of assets and wealth.
this post was submitted on 26 Sep 2023
317 points (92.3% liked)
Technology
59197 readers
3404 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
He's referring not to a land grab but cloud capital charging rent to the capitalist class. Essentially creating a class as far above the capitalist as the capitalist is above the worker.
Listened to a good interview with him on a podcast last night after trying to read this shit article.
While it is far more advanced and ubiquitous, I don't see how paying to social media companies is fundamentally distinct from having to pay for ads in newspapers and TV that they did in "good old capitalism". Maybe I should look up how he puts it, but it still sounds like capitalism.
I think it's a matter of degree.
And his prime example, no pun intended, is Amazon not social media. In his view, Bezos has more in common with a feudal lord than a capitalist. And the power difference between Jeff and the capitalist is as large as the difference between the capitalist and the worker.
So, essentially, we're watching feudalism come back into power. Which itself still had commerce, markets on the King's land for example. Which, to me, does sound a lot like Amazon.
The article itself uses examples of Facebook and Twitter/X so that's where I compared it to older forms of media.
When it comes to Amazon I kinda see where that argument comes from, but I'm not entirely convinced. It's not like renting spaces and hiring services was not part of Capitalism anyway, stores had to rent space in malls. Franchising also comes to mind, where a smaller businessman has to pay to operate under a certain brand. Amazon seems a larger scale of that and I can see how that is concerning, but calling it "technofeudalism" seems like trying to gloss over the issues in regular Capitalism.
One could very well host their own services, their own internet communities and online stores. I understand that it's much harder to make them thrive compared to just being on Amazon and Facebook, but this is a way in which it's not like Feudalism. You aren't commanded by the King and the laws of the land to pay the tax, you are just competitively disadvantaged in the market if you don't. Like Capitalism.
If anything this shows the importance of trust busting, which has been pretty much abandoned in recent decades. It might even warrant the existence of public internet services much in the same way we have public radio and TV.
load more comments
(1 replies)
The article really doesn't engage much with what YV actually wrote; she says that she disagrees with him sometimes or that other people disagree, but with very little substance.
Like others have already commented, she's also excessively obsessed with describing his house and wife. I can't believe The Observer paid for her to fly out there to write such drivel.
Whatever they call it, it's shit for humans to live in.
"Capitalism is dead. Now we have something much worse"
Capitalism 2.
He's spoken on the topic elsewhere, at least a few interviews (on youtube). That'll be better than this slop - edit: the Guardian was co-opted by the UK securlty state after cops raided them soon they did their reporting on Edword Snowdon.
Yeah, this interview is pretty bad.
But this post did turn me onto his ideas and found an interview with him on a podcast last night that was really good.
But this post did turn me onto his ideas and found an interview with him on a podcast last night that was really good.
Nope but I will give that a listen too! So thanks for the link.
I'm interested in getting his book also.
Oh, so which interview did you listen to then?
It died when socialism became a corporate only condition. Now its corporate capitalism with government socialism.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
What could be more delightful than a trip to Greece to meet Yanis Varoufakis, the charismatic leftwing firebrand who tried to stick it to the man, AKA the IMF, EU and entire global financial order?
The house is where Varoufakis and his wife, landscape artist Danae Stratou, live, year round since the pandemic, but in August 2023 at the end of a summer of heatwaves and extreme weather conditions across the world, it feels more than a little apocalyptic.
Stratou and Varoufakis are a striking couple, as glamorous as their house, a cool, luminous space featuring poured concrete and big glass windows overlooking a perfect rectangle of blue pool.
“I have no issues with luxury,” he says at one point, which is just as well because the entire scene would give the Daily Mail a conniption, especially since Aegina seems to be Greece’s equivalent of Martha’s Vineyard, home to a highly networked artistic and political elite.
I’d messaged a bunch of people to ask them what they would ask Varoufakis, including McNamee, and precised the book to him – that two pivotal events have transformed the global economy: 1) the privatisation of the internet by America and China’s big tech companies; and 2) western governments’ and central banks’ responses to the 2008 great financial crisis, when they unleashed a tidal wave of cash.
This encouraged business models that promised world-changing outcomes, even if they were completely unrealistic and/or hostile to the public interest (eg the gig economy, self-driving cars, crypto, metaverse, AI).
The original article contains 2,683 words, the summary contains 252 words. Saved 91%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
So the bot thinks this story is about his house and his wife, which isn't surprising. The article is unbelievably florid, I couldn't get through it.
Like seriously shut the fuck up about the setting in which you had the interview. Are these people paid by the word? And why does every phrase need to be couched three layers deep in entendre and negatives? Just say what you mean, ffs. Every time I felt like it was starting to get to the meat of the issue they got distracted talking about some completely unrelated bullshit.
EDIT: Don't downvote the bot, people. It's doing its best, it just doesn't know how to deal with neoliberal slop. As a thinking person, I can barely deal with it.
Thanks for dealing with that frustration so that I don't have to
I mean I didn't get through it. It's entirely possible the location of Atlantis is somewhere in that article, I wouldn't know.
Are these people paid by the word?
I think a lot of these articles have a required word count, because supposedly google doesn't rank short articles well. A lot of journalism seems to be writing for bots rather than humans.
I've seen this writing style in many Swedish article I read but usually it's kept short and interneting. If I wanted to know all about the interview setting and the imagery mattered to me, I would have watched a recording of it.
view more: next ›