This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I'm somewhat tempted to blame venture capital.
Many of these web companies grew into what they are while catering to the whims of VC funds. Which usually meant massive and rapid growth to get as many users as possible. Which is not a bad strategy when you have less than millions of users. But at some point in the millions of users you need to convert to monetization of those user's. But that is typically when the firm goes public and loses all guidance from the VC. Or worst of all is stuck with founding leadership that was optimized for the "acquire users at all costs" schtick.
I'm now wondering if it's a software investment problem in general. AAA games seem to follow a similar dumb logic. Endless cloning and copying of the hatest hit, barely any differentiation among the top products.
Someone want to give the expected IRR hurdle for high usage low conversion platform aggregators? The optimistic discount rates given to investors at pitch rarely map onto actual as use statistics or patterns, and oftentimes the VCs are number crunchers looking at TAM conversions instead of understanding how ginned up stats are disguising other more usable metrics. Oftentimes platforms have to find a defensible USP to slather on top of the blitzscaling machine they've built and hope the narrative of the USP holds when the blitzscaling is creaking under fake incentives, and that just becomes a bagholder escape exercise.
Tumblr, Reddit, Twitter, Discord are famous examples of high use platforms unable to convert their userbases into monetizable assets without significant curation and often full on self destruction once the USP got exposed to scrutiny. A more quantifiable example of platform aggregation failure is the facebook pivot-to-video where autoplay vids got counted as full engagement and caused many platforms to both invest in video architecture as well as creation, when in reality no one was actually watching that much video (that came later on with tiktok and COVID doomscrolling cemented that operational modus). Facebooks shift to video specifically meant plenty of VCs were investing in esports specifically, which had to be written off in later years and which clearly showed changes in term sheets post 2020 after the charade was exposed.
Its also true that we are likely still in the overhang of ZIRP, with an irrational exuberance in market strength due to Trump and rapid capital shifting during this economic chaos. We still are in the window for a lagged interest rate stressor, and mortgages are peaking above 07 rates though that means nothing in this differentiated environment. In any case this ZIRP overhang still sees capital sloshing around looking for someplace, ANYPLACE to put money into to get alpha, and the demand for a story outweighs the demand for a technically sound assessment. No ones going to listen to the sysadmin saying the usage stats for AI wrapper chatbots don't make sense and will collapse when regex parsers are shown to be as useless as BPO outsourcing consultancies, VC Principals listen to the confident guy that promises he will change how humans work thanks to their Scarlett Johanssen sexvoice AI assistant reminding grandma to take her meds.
I kinda wish we had a tipping function on this site (no, that's not actually a feature request) because this encapsulated the rant I would have made about VC much more concisely and with even sharper barbs than I would have used.
I'd just add on the "the demand for a story outweighs the demand for a technically sound assessment" point.
I hate how most modern Founders take the position that they're solving some pressing and very difficult problem facing the world. But if you point out that their proposed solution has some bad second order effects and might make things even worse you get a justification that boils down to "Well a real solution is to too hard to produce all at once so we expect to iterate towards that over time, meanwhile if we don't do this thing someone else will."
And I'm thinking "that sounds like the actual problem that needs solving, how to coordinate enough to mitigate second order effects while working towards a long term solution. Why aren't you working on THAT?"
Specifically thinking of Cluely right now. "We'll let you cheat your way through ANYTHING!"
"Okay, neat GPT wrapper. Can you see how this might cause some serious trust problems for both your customers and the people they interact with if you're encouraging them to be dishonest and hide their use of your product?"
"Not our issue."
"...Okay. I will immediately invest in any company which persuasively promises to render your company nonviable. That's the problem I want solved."
Like, the story is "VCs and Founders work together to coordinate capital towards creating a better world."
It really seems in practice "VCs throw money at any Founders who seem smart enough to turn that money into a viable product and capture a 10-100X ROI even if it makes the world worse in some less-tangible way." Any benefits to the consumer/society are a byproduct of this process. (Which may be enough of a justification, mind).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Oh man I could do a rant on the current state of VC too, although it'd be from a position of ignorance as to the on-the-ground-realities.
I remember Juicero.
I think that your point rings true, though. Founders these days apparently want to exit as big as possible as quickly as possible. Your initial product, your initial audience is really just there to springboard you to mainstream attention, where you grab as many new users as you can, crow about your growth metrics to you can bring in more investors, at which point you're either going to make it to an IPO or blow up b/c the stats were straight up faked or simply not maintainable.
Or get bought by one of the big players who sees you as potential competition, which still gives you a major payday.
Its weird that I've grown some grudging respect for Mark Zuckerberg. Despite hating what FB has become compared to what it was... he sticks around and owns his decisions, remains the face of the company, and makes BIG plays like paying a BILLION FACKING DOLLARS to poach top AI researchers. Also he seems to really love his wife and has stuck with her, no whiff of scandal, for over a decade now.
Indie games seem to be a counterargument to my point, the internet allows them to find and cultivate audiences and while some of them elevate to smash hits, they all thrive on being unique and playing to their specific strengths, and while you still see tons of copycatting, most of the time the ones that 'win' are truly imaginative.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link