Don't call it a wealth tax. Call it private property as a service - PPaaS. After all, one of the primary functions of government is to implement property rights. The more property you have, the more your subscription should cost. Most wealth is in the form of government issued currency, shares of government chartered collectives, government allocated land and government enforced debt contracts. It's all about government services. If the government stopped policing theft and fraud that left one with more than five or ten million dollars worth of assets, people with more than five or ten million dollars worth of assets would be glad to pay for the service., if they aren't, it opens up a whole new industry sector.
The Altman beg is a confession that they have no plan other than to throw enough processors at their LLMs and hope a miracle happens. I guess Bitcoin miners can use them after Skynet fails to achieve self awareness.
"Bluesky's business model is 'TBD, but definitely not ads.'": That's one of two reasons why I'm not interested in Bluesky. Tell me what your business model is, and I'll have a good idea whether I'd be willing to use your service. Be coy about it, and I'm out of here. For now, you may be running on investor money, but eventually, you'll have to shut down or make money, and if you have investors, you'll have to make more than enough to cover your expenses. And particularly if, like Bluesky, your company has a Silicon Valley pedigree, it's reasonable to anticipate you won't be scrupulous about how you do that.
The other reason is perhaps more idiosyncratic, but not wildly so: I'm just not interested in "social media". What I want, and what research (e.g., from Pew*) indicates many other people want, is a comfortable online environment for extended conversations with friends, maybe family, and maybe colleagues, not another form of media dominated by public figures, celebrities, brands, "influencers", etc. For people like me, "social media" has been an increasingly frustrating detour, with services becoming ever less useful for the purposes that matter to us.
To be clear, I do understand the value Twitter had, before King-in-his-own-mind Elon trashed it, for journalists and people trying (for better or worse) to reach big audiences without big spending on conventional advertising. (And I did have a Twitter account starting in 2007, because at that time, it was the darling of Silicon Valley, and I felt a professional obligation to keep up with such things.) If journalists find Bluesky useful, good for them. I'm just not looking for what they're looking for in an online communication service.
Totally respect your second point. Social media (particularly a Twitter replacement) is very much my-kind-of-entertainment. (Give me something that can let me read and share funny quips while my small kids watch Disney shows. That is all I want!) Social media ain't for everyone though.
I *will* say in Bluesky's defense that at least they are set up as a b-corp and actively not trying to reach a "unicorn" valuation. They don't know what the business model is, but they also aren't aiming for an IPO event. And I think/hope that's an approach that can lead to good things. <crosses fingers and murmurs a small prayer>
I appreciate the concept of BlueSky. X got creepy and due to a hack, I won't be with Meta anymore either. Had a few thousand followers on Meta, and sure wish I could let them know that I'm here now.
So, the thing about political science as a field is that we mostly begin from a ceteris paribus assumption (all else being equal). That makes estimating the likelihood of unprecedented events pretty difficult by definition, since they're unprecedented. (comparativist political scientists are more useful here, but the literature I know best is focused on american politics.)
So I'd say a few things, but mostly as a citizen and a political observer:
-We're living in unprecedented times. We have a two-party system, and one of the parties is actively working to undermine democracy. There is plenty of cause for alarm.
-I am, however, less pessimistic than I was two years ago. (I was *extremely* pessimistic then. I'm, like, medium-pessimistic now.) All of the Republicans who ran for secretary of state on a platform of "fuck it, we'll throw out election results we don't like" lost their races. The Republican Party is not popular, and while the mass public doesn't tend to identify protecting democracy as a top-tier motivating issue, it does seem to still vote in favor of electoral democracy when the issue is forced.
-These Republican elites aren't strategic masterminds. The insurrectionist in the Speaker's chair can barely count to 214. It is more likely that they create a catastrophe through incompetence than through intention.
-As we get closer to election day, I expect a bit of small-c conservatism to show up in their behavior. They don't want to lose elections. They want to demonize migrants because they think that's a winning issue, and they know it plays well on Fox News. But I think they'll start acting slightly-more-normal (compared to themselves today. Not compared to historic trends or anything) once they're actively worried about polling and headlines and imminent voting.
-I'm very worried about catastrophic events post-Election Day. But there is such a wide range of potential outcomes that I don't have a specific worry in mind. Just "shit. So many things can go bad."
Don't call it a wealth tax. Call it private property as a service - PPaaS. After all, one of the primary functions of government is to implement property rights. The more property you have, the more your subscription should cost. Most wealth is in the form of government issued currency, shares of government chartered collectives, government allocated land and government enforced debt contracts. It's all about government services. If the government stopped policing theft and fraud that left one with more than five or ten million dollars worth of assets, people with more than five or ten million dollars worth of assets would be glad to pay for the service., if they aren't, it opens up a whole new industry sector.
Perfection.
The Altman beg is a confession that they have no plan other than to throw enough processors at their LLMs and hope a miracle happens. I guess Bitcoin miners can use them after Skynet fails to achieve self awareness.
"Bluesky's business model is 'TBD, but definitely not ads.'": That's one of two reasons why I'm not interested in Bluesky. Tell me what your business model is, and I'll have a good idea whether I'd be willing to use your service. Be coy about it, and I'm out of here. For now, you may be running on investor money, but eventually, you'll have to shut down or make money, and if you have investors, you'll have to make more than enough to cover your expenses. And particularly if, like Bluesky, your company has a Silicon Valley pedigree, it's reasonable to anticipate you won't be scrupulous about how you do that.
The other reason is perhaps more idiosyncratic, but not wildly so: I'm just not interested in "social media". What I want, and what research (e.g., from Pew*) indicates many other people want, is a comfortable online environment for extended conversations with friends, maybe family, and maybe colleagues, not another form of media dominated by public figures, celebrities, brands, "influencers", etc. For people like me, "social media" has been an increasingly frustrating detour, with services becoming ever less useful for the purposes that matter to us.
To be clear, I do understand the value Twitter had, before King-in-his-own-mind Elon trashed it, for journalists and people trying (for better or worse) to reach big audiences without big spending on conventional advertising. (And I did have a Twitter account starting in 2007, because at that time, it was the darling of Silicon Valley, and I felt a professional obligation to keep up with such things.) If journalists find Bluesky useful, good for them. I'm just not looking for what they're looking for in an online communication service.
*https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2011/11/15/why-americans-use-social-media/
Totally respect your second point. Social media (particularly a Twitter replacement) is very much my-kind-of-entertainment. (Give me something that can let me read and share funny quips while my small kids watch Disney shows. That is all I want!) Social media ain't for everyone though.
I *will* say in Bluesky's defense that at least they are set up as a b-corp and actively not trying to reach a "unicorn" valuation. They don't know what the business model is, but they also aren't aiming for an IPO event. And I think/hope that's an approach that can lead to good things. <crosses fingers and murmurs a small prayer>
I hope their B-corp commitment is firmer than Ello's was. (You've probably seen this, but in case not:
https://waxy.org/2024/01/the-quiet-death-of-ellos-big-dreams/
It's the sad story of Ello, according to Andy Baio.)
Oh that's interesting, I hadn't seen this one. (Thanks!)
UPDATE: Well that was a harrowing read.
My understanding is that Bluesky has taken some VC funding. So... yeah. Yikes.
Just going to say that I love the call for a wealth tax. Excellent stuff as always, more generally
Re. Bluesky: I hope the Don’t Engage; Just Block ethos survives the new user onslaught.
Yeah I think the community ethos and norms are strong. Will have to see if they're strong enough.
I remember laughing at the Canadian elections of 2022 where everyone was whining about the grueling ten-week campaign.
The Dutch national actual election campaign period is about three weeks.
I do have to add that negotiations between parties to create a government may take more than a year. No system is perfect if society fragments.
I appreciate the concept of BlueSky. X got creepy and due to a hack, I won't be with Meta anymore either. Had a few thousand followers on Meta, and sure wish I could let them know that I'm here now.
Dave, I posted a screenshot your vision pro comment and tweeted about it and within five minutes I have like 20 likes from porn bots.
Porn bots, huge fans of Dave Karpf.
Sounds like MySpace in 2007.
"Wow! 20 new messages. And they're all from... oh. Nevermind."
Thanks Gabe.
So, the thing about political science as a field is that we mostly begin from a ceteris paribus assumption (all else being equal). That makes estimating the likelihood of unprecedented events pretty difficult by definition, since they're unprecedented. (comparativist political scientists are more useful here, but the literature I know best is focused on american politics.)
So I'd say a few things, but mostly as a citizen and a political observer:
-We're living in unprecedented times. We have a two-party system, and one of the parties is actively working to undermine democracy. There is plenty of cause for alarm.
-I am, however, less pessimistic than I was two years ago. (I was *extremely* pessimistic then. I'm, like, medium-pessimistic now.) All of the Republicans who ran for secretary of state on a platform of "fuck it, we'll throw out election results we don't like" lost their races. The Republican Party is not popular, and while the mass public doesn't tend to identify protecting democracy as a top-tier motivating issue, it does seem to still vote in favor of electoral democracy when the issue is forced.
-These Republican elites aren't strategic masterminds. The insurrectionist in the Speaker's chair can barely count to 214. It is more likely that they create a catastrophe through incompetence than through intention.
-As we get closer to election day, I expect a bit of small-c conservatism to show up in their behavior. They don't want to lose elections. They want to demonize migrants because they think that's a winning issue, and they know it plays well on Fox News. But I think they'll start acting slightly-more-normal (compared to themselves today. Not compared to historic trends or anything) once they're actively worried about polling and headlines and imminent voting.
-I'm very worried about catastrophic events post-Election Day. But there is such a wide range of potential outcomes that I don't have a specific worry in mind. Just "shit. So many things can go bad."