If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Salon)   Facebook and Google are killing the internet   (salon.com) divider line 84
    More: Ironic, Google, MetaFilter  
•       •       •

12308 clicks; posted to Main » on 27 May 2014 at 4:30 AM (21 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



84 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-05-26 11:54:31 PM  
Obvious tag, seeing as this was another Salon article, wisely ducks out into the back alley and pays the misunderstood Ironic tag $20 to take its place.
 
2014-05-27 02:51:37 AM  
What a surprise, more pablum from Salon.
 
2014-05-27 03:32:51 AM  
Nice one, subby.
 
2014-05-27 04:37:57 AM  
Corporate consolidation of all industries IS America and American capitalism at it's best. Nothing will ever stop it.
 
2014-05-27 04:51:31 AM  
FB is using the old AOL model, of trying to be THE total internet package.  We all saw how well that worked out.
 
2014-05-27 04:54:25 AM  

JerkyMeat: Corporate consolidation of all industries IS America and American capitalism at it's best. Nothing will ever stop it.


It's unfettered capitalism, and it's not a good thing.  Of course, it takes a strong government, willing and able to impose the necessary restrictions on the system to make capitalism actually work for the society (as opposed to only for those at the top).

Unfortunately, a century ago our system was altered to allow a select few to obtain a stranglehold on power, which they have used to unfetter the capitalist system with them at the top.  Our democracy was replaced with an oligarchy, and we didn't even notice.

/sigh
 
2014-05-27 05:10:27 AM  
I cannot really agree about things like metafilter. If their business exists solely on the basis of someone elses search engine directing people to them at no cost then it is not really anyone elses problem if they die.

However the general trend IS very disturbing.
 
2014-05-27 05:16:02 AM  

gaspode: I cannot really agree about things like metafilter. If their business exists solely on the basis of someone elses search engine directing people to them at no cost then it is not really anyone elses problem if they die.

However the general trend IS very disturbing.


Not to mention that Metafilter's model of forcing users to pay up for commenting access is a losing proposition in the face of free sites like Reddit (and Fark and Digg and Slashdot and ...). They are a low volume Fark, for all intents and purposes, and its hoighty-toighty, nose-in-the-air pomposity makes it unattractive to people who are simply looking for either plain news or humorous takes on the news.

Metafilter can't blame Google for their growing pains. They have niched themselves into obscurity and their user base growth is losing momentum.
 
2014-05-27 05:26:37 AM  
I'm pretty sure there used to be a project, called Diaspora, that was supposed to be something like a decentralized Facebook, but I haven't heard anything about it in quite some time, so I'm guessing its development didn't go well.
 
2014-05-27 05:28:48 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: Metafilter can't blame Google for their growing pains.


They can. Google devalued links to Metafilter, Metafilter experienced an immediate drop site visits.  Just  because you don't care for Metafilter, AAG, doesn't mean you can dismiss their complaint against Google.
 
2014-05-27 05:32:19 AM  
These exact things have been happening forever. Google is aquiring Twitch to extend their Youtube aquisition. Youtube was a huge moneysink which only ever had the hope of being bought by someone like Google who could afford to wait and make it profitable. It's thanks to companies like Google that we even have most of what we consider the modern internet.  Companies relying on search ranking has generated plenty of whinging as Google has updated their algorithms for the last decade.  The only benchmark for most of these companies is themselves.  Meanwhile, the market is diversifying.  There's a huge number of contenders for streaming media.  Facebook if anything is diminishing. People are now involved in pinterest, tumblr, snapchat, twitter, etc.

I would say this article is written by someone with a very short memory and a very limited experience of the internet.  His "Back in my day" speech is basically about the fact he liked facebook more two years ago and assumes his diminished enthusiasm is because everyone is making terrible decisions. My advice is to find some fulfillment outside of the internet.
 
2014-05-27 05:36:56 AM  

Sgygus: AverageAmericanGuy: Metafilter can't blame Google for their growing pains.

They can. Google devalued links to Metafilter, Metafilter experienced an immediate drop site visits.  Just  because you don't care for Metafilter, AAG, doesn't mean you can dismiss their complaint against Google.


As gaspode mentioned above, their reliance on Google to direct traffic to the site was its problem. That's not Goog's fault. That's the fault of whoever it was that came up with that brilliant strategy.

Metafilter is recycled news, just like Fark and Reddit. Same shiat, different format. Neither Fark nor Reddit come up very much in search results because they don't create new information and people don't link to them. Rather they link outwards to actual content sites (as shiatty and repetitive as some of those sites are DAILY MAIL).

Yes, the Blue does do a good job of consolidating information. But why would the folks over there think that ought to give them high rankings in Google search results? Google has never made it a secret what the key elements of search rankings are.  https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/35769?hl=en
 
2014-05-27 05:41:50 AM  

Sgygus: AverageAmericanGuy: Metafilter can't blame Google for their growing pains.

They can. Google devalued links to Metafilter, Metafilter experienced an immediate drop site visits.  Just  because you don't care for Metafilter, AAG, doesn't mean you can dismiss their complaint against Google.


Unless they never 'deserved' those links in the first place? The purpose of google search results is not to give revenue to other companies but to give search users what they want (and therefore sell advertising of course but that is implicit). If google (by algorithm or decision) conclude that metafilter results are too high then there is no earthly reason they should not lower its score weighting.
 
2014-05-27 05:52:51 AM  
Listen, you naive people. The whole reason you set up something like TwitchTV in the first place is so that Google or Facebook come along and buy you for insane numbers of dollars.

It's had $33m invested in it and has had a total of 6 million views to date. That's a loss making venture. There's no way they're getting $5 of advertising for each view. Those investors were making a high risk investment that some fool would come along and buy it for an insane amount of money.

What happens next? Well, if Google screw it up, you just go out and set up a competitor. If Google make it work, you get a better service.
 
2014-05-27 05:59:27 AM  

Dadoo: I'm pretty sure there used to be a project, called Diaspora, that was supposed to be something like a decentralized Facebook, but I haven't heard anything about it in quite some time, so I'm guessing its development didn't go well.


I've had an idea in my head that's based around RSS. You have an address like social.mysite.com, or it could even be that Google host it at social.farkeruk.google.com. You then write updates (using a friendly client) that update the content of your site and your friends simply get the updates via RSS. You also have ways to do private messages and "following" and private content by issuing keys to people. So, someone posts a friend request, and you send their social.site.com a key that grants them access.

Early days it would be quite nerdy as you'd need to have some skills with subdomains and stuff, but if it grew then you'd have ISPs and large companies doing it.
 
2014-05-27 06:32:59 AM  
Internet King
 
2014-05-27 06:35:23 AM  
When did Facebook decide I was "following" random people? Suddenly I'm getting email notes every time someone posts something.
 
2014-05-27 06:45:50 AM  
FormatSlacker: Companies relying on search ranking has generated plenty of whinging as Google has updated their algorithms for the last decade.
---
I find that my recent g00gle searches weigh way more toward recent articles - even if the slightly older articles are more detailed. Has g00gle decided that relevant=recent only?
 
2014-05-27 06:50:11 AM  

farkeruk: Listen, you naive people. The whole reason you set up something like TwitchTV in the first place is so that Google or Facebook come along and buy you for insane numbers of dollars.

It's had $33m invested in it and has had a total of 6 million views to date. That's a loss making venture. There's no way they're getting $5 of advertising for each view. Those investors were making a high risk investment that some fool would come along and buy it for an insane amount of money.

What happens next? Well, if Google screw it up, you just go out and set up a competitor. If Google make it work, you get a better service.


Twitch also has a paid model, they not only rely on ad impressions. And btw, that's the reason why Google bought them, because the intrinsic pay model. Nobody pays for Youtube, but people do pay for Twitch and the content producers and Twitch split that money 50/50. Sure, Twitch was having trouble keeping up with demand and someone like Google buying them is obviously going to increase the resources, but Twitch was never made so Google could buy them.
 
2014-05-27 06:53:01 AM  
 
2014-05-27 07:14:41 AM  

nanim: FormatSlacker: Companies relying on search ranking has generated plenty of whinging as Google has updated their algorithms for the last decade.
---
I find that my recent g00gle searches weigh way more toward recent articles - even if the slightly older articles are more detailed. Has g00gle decided that relevant=recent only?


It depends on the query and the user. First, Google is increasingly showing different results to different people based on factors including their location, language, search history, operating system, Google+ use, and more. Second, Google has a principle of "query demands freshness" that affects (roughly) 35% of searches. For those search queries (such as those relating to breaking news), Google will tend to show the most-recent information, often regardless of the quality.

/ SEO guy
// the good kind
 
2014-05-27 07:20:59 AM  
At MetaFilter, the inscrutability of Google's page-ranking algorithms determines whether publishing outlets live or die.

That's not corporate consolidation. Google's job is to figure out what pages are relevant to what people are trying to find through their site. Google is very good at this. Because Google is very good at this, their service is very popular. Because their service is very popular, Google giving your page a high ranking can be a huge boost to your service.

The complaint here seems to be that Google should stop doing their job because the results aren't fair and either make every site crop up first in the listings, or else make "my site/favorite site" first.

Those are, respectively, not possible and not nearly as useful. Don't like it? Stop relying on search engines and start trying to find things online by typing random URLs into the address bar.
 
2014-05-27 07:31:42 AM  
This is certainly a fear in the Nationet. Well, if there were such a thing. But if they had bothered to look globally at the Internet and saw things like Baidu, Renren, Alibaba, and Tencent, perhaps they would realize there are international competitors to all of the American companies they listed.

Perhaps we can wait and see how the search and content wars play out in that arena before wailing about monopoly. Chopping Google up isn't going to make Baidu play nice, and we've seen how China can pour money into their national champions to compete. Then we can regulate or tax the U.S. operations of the winner (if any)  to our heart's content.
 
2014-05-27 07:33:23 AM  
At MetaFilter, the inscrutability of Google's page-ranking algorithms determines whether publishing outlets live or die.

And here I was thinking that quality content determined whether publishers live or die.
 
2014-05-27 07:35:40 AM  
The internet is being ruined/going corporate? This guy is late to the party. From what I've read or heard second hand, wasn't it adverising considerations that got Foobies banished from the Main Page links so many years ago?
 
2014-05-27 07:41:12 AM  

NutWrench: At MetaFilter, the inscrutability of Google's page-ranking algorithms determines whether publishing outlets live or die.

And here I was thinking that quality content determined whether publishers live or die.


It doesn't matter how high the quality of your content is - if you don't show up in Google, nobody will ever see it
 
hej
2014-05-27 07:53:38 AM  
So "Metafilter is losing money" equates to "the Internet is dying".   Even if I had ever used that site before, I think I'd have a hard time buying that.
 
2014-05-27 07:57:05 AM  
Oh wow. Another pointless, horribly written article from the enlightened ones at Salon... What a surprise.
 
2014-05-27 08:04:03 AM  

skinink: The internet is being ruined/going corporate? This guy is late to the party. From what I've read or heard second hand, wasn't it adverising considerations that got Foobies banished from the Main Page links so many years ago?


Exhibit 1 of how Capitalism has indeed ruined the Internet. It has devolved from an information and communication paradise to a cross between a billboard and television.

I knew it was over when, back in '94, some "Internet marketing company" wanted to charge mine $300 to insert one line of code in their link farm site.
 
2014-05-27 08:17:01 AM  
Wow... so if I don't have a Facebook account, I must be missing half of the internet!  Can you imagine if I used Bing?  OMG!

What a useless article.  Couldn't spend more than 10 seconds reading it.

The internet is just articles trying to one up one another on the drama llama scale.  Nothing makes a good headline like marking "The end of..." something.
 
2014-05-27 08:18:36 AM  

farkeruk: What happens next? Well, if Google screw it up, you just go out and set up a competitor. If Google make it work, you get a better service.


El oh el. Will you be loaning out the millions of dollars startups like Twitch require? Streaming and internet video isn't like Fark where all it takes to get started is some guy to post a page of links he wants to share with his friends who forward the page to their friends who forward the page again.


FTA: If, after integrating with YouTube, rights holders start using ContentID to claim ownership over the intellectual property in over those videos, the advertising revenue generated by those videos would no longer end up in the hands of the creators of that revenue. Even scarier, to some, is that the possibility that years of previously produced streams might suddenly come under interdiction. And ContentID is by no means infallible: They make plenty of (costly) mistakes.



The major issue with Youtube's copyright bots is twofold:
1. Even NASA gets hit with false takedowns on a monthly basis and most victims don't have NASA's clout to have their content restored.
2. There is no penalty for false takedowns. There is no disincentive for spam bots slinging out takedowns with no concern for legitimacy.

Last month, an overzealous music publisher took down videos of Barack Obama singing a line from one of its songs (then, as now, YouTube eventually reviewed and reversed the takedown).

A NASA spokesman says that its content gets erroneously taken down about once a month. They've been asking YouTube to fix the problem but "it hasn't helped much." If a prominent federal agency like NASA struggles with unfair takedowns, what hope do the rest of us have of getting YouTube's attention when our videos are taken down?
...
Content ID gives content companies the power to unilaterally remove content. There's no apparent penalty for those who take down content carelessly or recklessly.

This morning at around 1:31AM EST, Curiosity, NASA's latest robotic Martian rover, touched down safely on the surface of the Red Planet's Gale Crater. But video of the historic event, posted to NASA's own YouTube channel, wasn't so lucky. Motherboard reports that about an hour after appearing on NASA's livestream, a video uploaded from Curiosity's control room during the landing was replaced by a DMCA copyright notice, purportedly the handiwork of the site's notorious automated takedown system.

About an hour later, the video was back online. The offending copyright claim came from one Scripps News Service, and it wasn't the first time - back in April, the company had also removed a video of the Space Shuttle Discovery riding atop a 747 as it departed NASA's Kennedy Space Center. According to Bob Jacobs, NASA's Deputy Associate Administrator for Communications, the bogus claims happen at least once a month.
...
The automated process comes from YouTube's Content ID system, which has been the target of considerable criticism in the past. The algorithm has flagged false positives in everything from cover songs (protected under Fair Use) to birds singing in the background of a video. Universal Music's dubious copyright claims on a promotional video for filesharing site MegaUpload have even led to the removal of an episode of Tech News Today simply for including a clip of the ad in their video. But even without automation, bogus copyright claims made the old-fashioned way still overwhelmingly favor the complainant. Motherboard notes the absurdity of YouTube's primary defense against such frivolous claims, a line in the site's copyright claims page which simply states, "Don't make false claims!"

 
2014-05-27 08:30:22 AM  
Do you know how you can tell I didn't read TFA?
 
2014-05-27 08:41:30 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: gaspode: I cannot really agree about things like metafilter. If their business exists solely on the basis of someone elses search engine directing people to them at no cost then it is not really anyone elses problem if they die.

However the general trend IS very disturbing.

Not to mention that Metafilter's model of forcing users to pay up for commenting access is a losing proposition in the face of free sites like Reddit (and Fark and Digg and Slashdot and ...). They are a low volume Fark, for all intents and purposes, and its hoighty-toighty, nose-in-the-air pomposity makes it unattractive to people who are simply looking for either plain news or humorous takes on the news.

Metafilter can't blame Google for their growing pains. They have niched themselves into obscurity and their user base growth is losing momentum.


Absolutely spot on. It has become an ultra left wing gay socialist feminist echo chamber.... with the smug factor turned all the way up to 11.

For a time they were pretty much the only 2 sites I visted. I used to consider Fark to be the right wing ying to Metafilter's raging yang. But somehow Fark slowly drifted left to be the PRERFECT site at this present point in time. It's a constant stream of fantastic comments from BOTH sides of the political spectrum.

// I've never visited the Fark Politics tab. I'm lead to believe there's too much crazy.
 
2014-05-27 08:44:56 AM  

Jorn the Younger: JerkyMeat: Corporate consolidation of all industries IS America and American capitalism at it's best. Nothing will ever stop it.

It's unfettered capitalism, and it's not a good thing.  Of course, it takes a strong government, willing and able to impose the necessary restrictions on the system to make capitalism actually work for the society (as opposed to only for those at the top).

Unfortunately, a century ago our system was altered to allow a select few to obtain a stranglehold on power, which they have used to unfetter the capitalist system with them at the top.  Our democracy was replaced with an oligarchy, and we didn't even notice.

/sigh


The coffee shop debates with your hippie friends are making you dumb.
 
2014-05-27 08:50:46 AM  

MyRandomName: Jorn the Younger: JerkyMeat: Corporate consolidation of all industries IS America and American capitalism at it's best. Nothing will ever stop it.

It's unfettered capitalism, and it's not a good thing.  Of course, it takes a strong government, willing and able to impose the necessary restrictions on the system to make capitalism actually work for the society (as opposed to only for those at the top).

Unfortunately, a century ago our system was altered to allow a select few to obtain a stranglehold on power, which they have used to unfetter the capitalist system with them at the top.  Our democracy was replaced with an oligarchy, and we didn't even notice.

/sigh

The coffee shop debates with your hippie friends are making you dumb.


No, it's really what happened.  The Congress of 1911 altered the way Representatives are apportioned - instead of one Representative for every 20,000 citizens, the number of Representatives at the time (345) would be divided amongst a population that continues to expand.  Individual citizens matter less and less, and power is concentrated into a small group of people - i.e., oligarchy.
 
2014-05-27 08:52:22 AM  

Jorn the Younger: MyRandomName: Jorn the Younger: JerkyMeat: Corporate consolidation of all industries IS America and American capitalism at it's best. Nothing will ever stop it.

It's unfettered capitalism, and it's not a good thing.  Of course, it takes a strong government, willing and able to impose the necessary restrictions on the system to make capitalism actually work for the society (as opposed to only for those at the top).

Unfortunately, a century ago our system was altered to allow a select few to obtain a stranglehold on power, which they have used to unfetter the capitalist system with them at the top.  Our democracy was replaced with an oligarchy, and we didn't even notice.

/sigh

The coffee shop debates with your hippie friends are making you dumb.

No, it's really what happened.  The Congress of 1911 altered the way Representatives are apportioned - instead of one Representative for every 20,000 citizens, the number of Representatives at the time (435) would be divided amongst a population that continues to expand.  Individual citizens matter less and less, and power is concentrated into a small group of people - i.e., oligarchy.


FTFM
 
2014-05-27 08:53:54 AM  
True FB and Google overall do make the Internet, overall, dumber. You get some that have the "fact" at hand, but little substance. Remember when you actually had to put forth effort in your statements? My teenage son does his papers, using a lot of search engines to look things up, but he, and most of his schoolmates, don't know jack about citing sources, or a bibliography.  They think Strunk and White are a rap group.
I have a word for these kids "Google" smart. Just smart enough to have a witty quip, but peters out afterwards.
Back in the old days, we actually had to learn things. My older son, for instance, seems to be amazed I know bolt tightening sequences for certain motors, likewise for certain motorcycles. Things you have to learn before the Internet, you never know, you might need to know it and not have connectivity.
 
2014-05-27 09:01:39 AM  

filter: FB is using the old AOL model, of trying to be THE total internet package.  We all saw how well that worked out.


That. I could see FB staying relevant for some time to come. But the mob is fickle and when they decide to do something else it will be like turning off a light.
 
2014-05-27 09:07:19 AM  

Big Ramifications: AverageAmericanGuy: gaspode:

For a time they [Fark & Metafilter] were pretty much the only 2 sites I visted. I used to consider Fark to be the right wing ying to Metafilter's raging yang. But somehow Fark slowly drifted left to be the PRERFECT site at this present point in time. It's a constant stream of fantastic comments from BOTH sides of the political spectrum.

// I've never visited the Fark Politics tab. I'm lead to believe there's too much crazy.


No offence to the lady personally, I don't think she meant it.... but the Metafilter moderator Jessamyn was the beginning of the end for that site. I can say this as a long term lurker, then a long term devotee.

Previously to her appointment, flame wars used to go on for a bit unchecked.... but if it went on too long Matthowie would maybe delete a few comments and tell the protagonists to "cut it out". Build a bridge. Get over it.

Just after Jessamyn got appointed as the first[?] helper moderator, I recall her deleting a comment / post and she justified it with a ridiculously long screed on the MetaTalk tab. At the time I thought this was a most odd development. And it created a rod for Metafilter's back.

Every 2nd deleted comment would involve a 100+ comment thread in MetaTalk where it would be wall-to-wall navel gazing and committee speak about not hurting anyone's feelings IN THE SLIGHTEST. Previous rulings would be brought up to challenge current comment deletions. People getting a week ban would generate 100 "favorites" [nothing more than bullying IMHO - that's not what the "favorite" button was for]. It just became a clusterfark of "some ideologies are more equal than others".

The moderation and bullying had a screamingly obvious left wing bent. Appointee moderator Cortex was cut from the same cloth and only added to the mess when he came on board soon after Jessamyn.

// the AskMetafilter tab was awesome - FRICKEN AWESOME
// not sure if it still is
/// some questions might hurt someone's feelings
 
2014-05-27 09:28:41 AM  
I quit clicking Salon links a while ago, but I still like to read the comments here about how terrible Salon is.
 
2014-05-27 09:32:49 AM  
RIP Internetses
 
2014-05-27 09:40:35 AM  
Oh, so it's possible that "online", just like in RL, you can end up with one or two super large companies that can control everything and stifle competition without blinking an eye?  Imagine that...
 
2014-05-27 09:41:52 AM  

Big Ramifications: Big Ramifications: AverageAmericanGuy: gaspode:

For a time they [Fark & Metafilter] were pretty much the only 2 sites I visted. I used to consider Fark to be the right wing ying to Metafilter's raging yang. But somehow Fark slowly drifted left to be the PRERFECT site at this present point in time. It's a constant stream of fantastic comments from BOTH sides of the political spectrum.

// I've never visited the Fark Politics tab. I'm lead to believe there's too much crazy.

No offence to the lady personally, I don't think she meant it.... but the Metafilter moderator Jessamyn was the beginning of the end for that site. I can say this as a long term lurker, then a long term devotee.

Previously to her appointment, flame wars used to go on for a bit unchecked.... but if it went on too long Matthowie would maybe delete a few comments and tell the protagonists to "cut it out". Build a bridge. Get over it.

Just after Jessamyn got appointed as the first[?] helper moderator, I recall her deleting a comment / post and she justified it with a ridiculously long screed on the MetaTalk tab. At the time I thought this was a most odd development. And it created a rod for Metafilter's back.

Every 2nd deleted comment would involve a 100+ comment thread in MetaTalk where it would be wall-to-wall navel gazing and committee speak about not hurting anyone's feelings IN THE SLIGHTEST. Previous rulings would be brought up to challenge current comment deletions. People getting a week ban would generate 100 "favorites" [nothing more than bullying IMHO - that's not what the "favorite" button was for]. It just became a clusterfark of "some ideologies are more equal than others".

The moderation and bullying had a screamingly obvious left wing bent. Appointee moderator Cortex was cut from the same cloth and only added to the mess when he came on board soon after Jessamyn.

// the AskMetafilter tab was awesome - FRICKEN AWESOME
// not sure if it still is
/// some questions might hurt someone ...


Fark had a feminazi mod that would delete and ban people for accusing some women of being fat or unattractive.

The fact that you ever thought Fark was right wingy speaks volumes about you.  The truth is, Fark has been in decline for about 5-6 years now. The smart political lefties have all fled.
 
2014-05-27 09:45:15 AM  
farkerukI've had an idea in my head that's based around RSS. You have an address like social.mysite.com, or it could even be that Google host it at social.farkeruk.google.com. You then write updates (using a friendly client) that update the content of your site and your friends simply get the updates via RSS. You also have ways to do private messages and "following" and private content by issuing keys to people. So, someone posts a friend request, and you send their social.site.com a key that grants them access.

So.,.. Twitter?
 
2014-05-27 09:45:26 AM  
"The good stuff gets co-opted, bought out, or is reduced to begging for spare change on the virtual street corner. "

When is the last time you saw a hostile takeover of a web company? If the "good guys" sell out, there is no one to blame but them. If Google buys Twitch, that is Twitch's fault, not Google's.
 
2014-05-27 09:54:51 AM  
Also, in what way do you have a successful website if your traffic is driven by Google hits? Can you imagine how horrible Google would be if searches returned Tumblr, Reddit and MetaFilter pages?

CSB:

I browse Fark by typing in www.fark.com or by clicking the bookmark on my bookmark bar. If I was going to Google and trying to search for Fark Comments about Salon articles I would be in no way surprised if I didn't find this page.

/CSB
 
2014-05-27 09:58:02 AM  

Jorn the Younger: JerkyMeat: Corporate consolidation of all industries IS America and American capitalism at it's best. Nothing will ever stop it.

It's unfettered capitalism, and it's not a good thing.  Of course, it takes a strong government, willing and able to impose the necessary restrictions on the system to make capitalism actually work for the society (as opposed to only for those at the top).

Unfortunately, a century ago our system was altered to allow a select few to obtain a stranglehold on power, which they have used to unfetter the capitalist system with them at the top.  Our democracy was replaced with an oligarchy, and we didn't even notice.

/sigh


It's kind of cute that you're not bright enough to tell you actually have what you're asking for.

Also, extra laughs that you think the USA ever was or was intended to be a democracy. Can tell you went to public school. The select few who designed this country correctly saw democracy as detestable, which is why the country was founded as a representative republic.
 
2014-05-27 09:58:05 AM  
Ex-Texan:
Back in the old days, we actually had to learn things. My older son, for instance, seems to be amazed I know bolt tightening sequences for certain motors, likewise for certain motorcycles. Things you have to learn before the Internet, you never know, you might need to know it and not have connectivity.

So how did you learn it to begin with?  Trial and error or someone teaching you.

Why not go I dont know... teach him something then?
 
2014-05-27 09:59:49 AM  

Sgygus: AverageAmericanGuy: Metafilter can't blame Google for their growing pains.

They can. Google devalued links to Metafilter, Metafilter experienced an immediate drop site visits.  Just  because you don't care for Metafilter, AAG, doesn't mean you can dismiss their complaint against Google.


Spot the MetaFilter poster! Found one!


Maybe next Salon will whine that TV stations don't give free ads to crappy sites like MetaFilter.
 
2014-05-27 10:03:01 AM  

fusillade762: When did Facebook decide I was "following" random people? Suddenly I'm getting email notes every time someone posts something.


When you clicked the follow button on their page and configured your update settings to include emails?
 
Displayed 50 of 84 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report