Post by zarahan on Jan 27, 2019 16:48:00 GMT -5
Transfer from ENgineering thread.
-------------------------------------------------
the center of West Africa’s burgeoning tech scene. On the walls, posters preach disruption: “Move fast and break things.”
How do posters react to critics of certain big aspects of the digital economy in the West- per below?
WOuld "break things" bring in a negative destruction of value and disruption of African economies?
If said critics are correct, how can Africa avoid such pitfalls?
About Throwing Rocks at the Google Bus
Why doesn’t the explosive growth of companies like Facebook and Uber deliver more prosperity for everyone?
What is the systemic problem that sets the rich against the poor and the technologists against everybody else?
When protesters shattered the windows of a bus carrying Google employees to work, their anger may have been justifiable, but it was misdirected. The true conflict of our age isn’t between the unemployed and the digital elite, or even the 99 percent and the 1 percent. Rather, a tornado of technological improvements has spun our economic program out of control, and humanity as a whole—the protesters and the Google employees as well as the shareholders and the executives—are all trapped by the consequences. It’s time to optimize our economy for the human beings it’s supposed to be serving.
In this groundbreaking book, acclaimed media scholar and author Douglas Rushkoff tells us how to combine the best of human nature with the best of modern technology. Tying together disparate threads—big data, the rise of robots and AI, the increasing participation of algorithms in stock market trading, the gig economy, the collapse of the eurozone—Rushkoff provides a critical vocabulary for our economic moment and a nuanced portrait of humans and commerce at a critical crossroads.
=========================================
Then of course, there are critics of Facebook including former execs..
www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/facebook-stock-price-nasdaq-mark-zuckerberg-common-share-latest-why-explained-a8465101.html
Facebook is 'ripping apart society', former executive says
James Titcomb
11 December 2017 • 6:15pm
One of Facebook’s earliest executives has said the social network is “destroying how society works" and that he feels “tremendous guilt” about his work.
Chamath Palihapitiya, who joined Facebook in 2007, accused it of “programming” its users and said he no longer uses the website or allows his children to access it.
“It literally is at a point now where I think we have created tools that are ripping apart the social fabric of how society works,” he told an audience at Stanford University. “We are in a really bad state of affairs right now in my opinion, it is eroding the core foundations of how people behave by and between each other.”
Palihapitiya, who was in charge of growing Facebook's global empire before leaving in 2011 to become a tech investor, is the latest in a string of early Facebook employees and investors to speak out about the evils of social media and warn the public about its effects on society.
Its former president Sean Parker has said Facebook is “exploiting a vulnerability in human psychology”, while Roger McNamee, an early investor, has accused it of using the techniques of Nazi propaganda chief Joseph Goebbels.
“I feel tremendous guilt,” Palihapitiya said. “I think we all knew in the back of our minds, even though we feigned this whole line of ‘there probably aren’t any really bad unintended consequences’, I think in the deep deep recesses of our minds we kind of knew something bad could happen.
“People need to hard break from some of these tools and the things that you rely on, the short-term, dopamine-driven feedback loops that we created are destroying how society works, [there is] no civil discourse, no-co operation, [but] misinformation and mistruth.
“We curate our lives around this perceived sense of perfection because we get rewarded in these short term signals, hearts and likes and thumbs up. We conflate that with value and we conflate that with truth, and instead what it really is is fake brittle popularity that’s short term and leaves you even more vacant and empty.”
The criticism comes as Facebook is under pressure over Russian agents allegedly using the social network to influence elections in the UK, US and Europe. MPs on the digital, culture media and sport committee have demanded the company disclose any evidence of interference in last year’s Brexit vote.
A Facebook spokesman said: "“Chamath has not been at Facebook for over 6 years. When Chamath was at Facebook we were focused on building new social media experiences and growing Facebook around the world. Facebook was a very different company back then, and as we have grown, we have realised how our responsibilities have grown too. We take our role very seriously and we are working hard to improve.
"We've done a lot of work and research with outside experts and academics to understand the effects of our service on well-being, and we're using it to inform our product development. We are also making significant investments more in people, technology and processes, and – as Mark Zuckerberg said on the last earnings call – we are willing to reduce our profitabi
--------------------------------------------------------
Then there are critics of Amazon as a value destroying machine, destroyer of small businesses.
Yes we have all heard the stories..
Assessing The Damage Of 'The Amazon Effect'
Steve Dennis
I write on the reinvention of retail in the age of digital disruption
Jeff Bezos, chief executive officer of Amazon, listens during a meeting of technology executives and President-elect Donald Trump at Trump Tower. (Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images)
Since I anticipate being labeled a Luddite, a Socialist and a hypocrite by some, let me acknowledge that I firmly believe that Amazon has done a lot of good for consumers by expanding choice, making shopping far more convenient and by delivering extraordinary product value. I recognize that many retailers were long overdue for a swift kick in their strategy. I also remain a very good and loyal Amazon customer. And I anticipate that the Whole Foods acquisition will ultimately result in lower prices, an enhanced shopping experience and maybe even improve the availability of more healthful food options. These are all good things.
Yet, we can't--and shouldn't--ignore the profound effect that Amazon is having on just about every corner of the retail world they set their sights on. Amazon is the proverbial 800-pound gorilla. Their entry into a market segment reshapes shopping dynamics, upsets the supply chain and exerts tremendous pricing and margin pressure. Books came first and we know how that played out. But, one by one, other categories followed and the dominoes continue to fall. Store closings. Bankruptcies. Once proud and dominant retailers teetering on the brink. Now you can add small "natural" grocery chains to the list of established retailers that may well get Amazon-ed (which is the most polite way to say it.)
To be fair, we should not blame department store woes on Amazon. Clearly many malls and quite a few retailers were well on their way to oblivion before Amazon cracked the $25 billion mark. And the grocery market share that Amazon will pick up with the Whole Foods acquisition is a drop in the bucket, even when combined with Amazon's existing volume. We also know that not everything Amazon touches turns to gold (I'm guessing you are unlikely to be reading this on your Amazon Fire).
Still it's hard to underestimate the magnitude of the Amazon effect. E-commerce represents about 10% of all U.S. retail and Amazon is by far the largest player, with an estimated share of 43%. Last year, Amazon accounted for 53% of all the incremental growth of online shopping, which means they are only growing their dominance. To underscore how much Amazon has infiltrated the shopping zeitgeist, one study indicates that more than half of all product searches start on Amazon.
It's also hard to underestimate the fundamentally different rules Amazon plays by. First and foremost, Amazon isn't required by its investors to make any real money. In fact, despite being in business more than 20 years, Amazon only recently surpassed Kroger and Priceline (not the sexiest of retailers) in total annual profits.
mywifequitherjob.com/the-dangers-of-selling-on-amazon/
As a core strategy to gobble up market share, Amazon (or more accurately its shareholders) provides huge subsidies to its delivery operation. According to one analysis, Amazon lost $7.2 billion on shipping costs last year alone. While this is clearly great for consumers, it puts many retailers in the untenable position of choosing between ceding market share to Amazon or lowering their prices to uneconomic and unsustainable levels. Most have chosen the latter strategy and are paying the price. The fallout is far from over.
It's hard to argue against innovation. It's hard to argue against greater choice, more convenience and lower prices. And clearly, long-term investors in Amazon have few arguments, while those that have hung in with Macy's, JC Penney and the like are licking their wounds.
Maybe Amazon can sell all this stuff at a loss and make it up on volume. Maybe once they help put many, many retailers out of business and play a big role in the "rationalization" of commercial real estate, Amazon will continue to reduce prices, rather than exploit their emerging monopoly-like power. Maybe we'll all be happy with fewer choices in retail brands. Maybe Amazon's dominance will encourage a new wave of different and more interesting retail models to counter-act the homogenization of retail we are in the midst of.
Maybe.
On the other hand, perhaps we should all be careful what we wish for. Perhaps we should consider that the problem with a race to the bottom is that we might win.
==============================================
Then there are critics of "the digital economy" in education, as the educator below argues..
hackeducation.com/2018/12/31/top-ed-tech-trends-money
=============================================
The above commentators or critics are all serious technologists, educators or journalists etc,
even former company execs, not random ranters off the web. WHich brings us back to the slogan-
move fast and break things, or as one site put it- "Disrupt Africa."
If any willing, take a stab at all oa few questions below if you will:
1) Are the pitfalls noted by the critics above a danger in Europe/US? If so what are implications for Africa?
2) If pitfalls above exist, what strategies can Africa/Africans use to avoid them?
3) Are there any areas in Africa where said pitfalls are in operation?
4) Are there any areas or initiatives where said pitfalls have been overcome?
Please all, thoughtful responses, minimum of personal stuff, snarks, etc etc... Thanks
-------------------------------------------------
the center of West Africa’s burgeoning tech scene. On the walls, posters preach disruption: “Move fast and break things.”
How do posters react to critics of certain big aspects of the digital economy in the West- per below?
WOuld "break things" bring in a negative destruction of value and disruption of African economies?
If said critics are correct, how can Africa avoid such pitfalls?
About Throwing Rocks at the Google Bus
Why doesn’t the explosive growth of companies like Facebook and Uber deliver more prosperity for everyone?
What is the systemic problem that sets the rich against the poor and the technologists against everybody else?
When protesters shattered the windows of a bus carrying Google employees to work, their anger may have been justifiable, but it was misdirected. The true conflict of our age isn’t between the unemployed and the digital elite, or even the 99 percent and the 1 percent. Rather, a tornado of technological improvements has spun our economic program out of control, and humanity as a whole—the protesters and the Google employees as well as the shareholders and the executives—are all trapped by the consequences. It’s time to optimize our economy for the human beings it’s supposed to be serving.
In this groundbreaking book, acclaimed media scholar and author Douglas Rushkoff tells us how to combine the best of human nature with the best of modern technology. Tying together disparate threads—big data, the rise of robots and AI, the increasing participation of algorithms in stock market trading, the gig economy, the collapse of the eurozone—Rushkoff provides a critical vocabulary for our economic moment and a nuanced portrait of humans and commerce at a critical crossroads.
=========================================
Then of course, there are critics of Facebook including former execs..
www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/facebook-stock-price-nasdaq-mark-zuckerberg-common-share-latest-why-explained-a8465101.html
Facebook is 'ripping apart society', former executive says
James Titcomb
11 December 2017 • 6:15pm
One of Facebook’s earliest executives has said the social network is “destroying how society works" and that he feels “tremendous guilt” about his work.
Chamath Palihapitiya, who joined Facebook in 2007, accused it of “programming” its users and said he no longer uses the website or allows his children to access it.
“It literally is at a point now where I think we have created tools that are ripping apart the social fabric of how society works,” he told an audience at Stanford University. “We are in a really bad state of affairs right now in my opinion, it is eroding the core foundations of how people behave by and between each other.”
Palihapitiya, who was in charge of growing Facebook's global empire before leaving in 2011 to become a tech investor, is the latest in a string of early Facebook employees and investors to speak out about the evils of social media and warn the public about its effects on society.
Its former president Sean Parker has said Facebook is “exploiting a vulnerability in human psychology”, while Roger McNamee, an early investor, has accused it of using the techniques of Nazi propaganda chief Joseph Goebbels.
“I feel tremendous guilt,” Palihapitiya said. “I think we all knew in the back of our minds, even though we feigned this whole line of ‘there probably aren’t any really bad unintended consequences’, I think in the deep deep recesses of our minds we kind of knew something bad could happen.
“People need to hard break from some of these tools and the things that you rely on, the short-term, dopamine-driven feedback loops that we created are destroying how society works, [there is] no civil discourse, no-co operation, [but] misinformation and mistruth.
“We curate our lives around this perceived sense of perfection because we get rewarded in these short term signals, hearts and likes and thumbs up. We conflate that with value and we conflate that with truth, and instead what it really is is fake brittle popularity that’s short term and leaves you even more vacant and empty.”
The criticism comes as Facebook is under pressure over Russian agents allegedly using the social network to influence elections in the UK, US and Europe. MPs on the digital, culture media and sport committee have demanded the company disclose any evidence of interference in last year’s Brexit vote.
A Facebook spokesman said: "“Chamath has not been at Facebook for over 6 years. When Chamath was at Facebook we were focused on building new social media experiences and growing Facebook around the world. Facebook was a very different company back then, and as we have grown, we have realised how our responsibilities have grown too. We take our role very seriously and we are working hard to improve.
"We've done a lot of work and research with outside experts and academics to understand the effects of our service on well-being, and we're using it to inform our product development. We are also making significant investments more in people, technology and processes, and – as Mark Zuckerberg said on the last earnings call – we are willing to reduce our profitabi
--------------------------------------------------------
Then there are critics of Amazon as a value destroying machine, destroyer of small businesses.
Yes we have all heard the stories..
Assessing The Damage Of 'The Amazon Effect'
Steve Dennis
I write on the reinvention of retail in the age of digital disruption
Jeff Bezos, chief executive officer of Amazon, listens during a meeting of technology executives and President-elect Donald Trump at Trump Tower. (Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images)
Since I anticipate being labeled a Luddite, a Socialist and a hypocrite by some, let me acknowledge that I firmly believe that Amazon has done a lot of good for consumers by expanding choice, making shopping far more convenient and by delivering extraordinary product value. I recognize that many retailers were long overdue for a swift kick in their strategy. I also remain a very good and loyal Amazon customer. And I anticipate that the Whole Foods acquisition will ultimately result in lower prices, an enhanced shopping experience and maybe even improve the availability of more healthful food options. These are all good things.
Yet, we can't--and shouldn't--ignore the profound effect that Amazon is having on just about every corner of the retail world they set their sights on. Amazon is the proverbial 800-pound gorilla. Their entry into a market segment reshapes shopping dynamics, upsets the supply chain and exerts tremendous pricing and margin pressure. Books came first and we know how that played out. But, one by one, other categories followed and the dominoes continue to fall. Store closings. Bankruptcies. Once proud and dominant retailers teetering on the brink. Now you can add small "natural" grocery chains to the list of established retailers that may well get Amazon-ed (which is the most polite way to say it.)
To be fair, we should not blame department store woes on Amazon. Clearly many malls and quite a few retailers were well on their way to oblivion before Amazon cracked the $25 billion mark. And the grocery market share that Amazon will pick up with the Whole Foods acquisition is a drop in the bucket, even when combined with Amazon's existing volume. We also know that not everything Amazon touches turns to gold (I'm guessing you are unlikely to be reading this on your Amazon Fire).
Still it's hard to underestimate the magnitude of the Amazon effect. E-commerce represents about 10% of all U.S. retail and Amazon is by far the largest player, with an estimated share of 43%. Last year, Amazon accounted for 53% of all the incremental growth of online shopping, which means they are only growing their dominance. To underscore how much Amazon has infiltrated the shopping zeitgeist, one study indicates that more than half of all product searches start on Amazon.
It's also hard to underestimate the fundamentally different rules Amazon plays by. First and foremost, Amazon isn't required by its investors to make any real money. In fact, despite being in business more than 20 years, Amazon only recently surpassed Kroger and Priceline (not the sexiest of retailers) in total annual profits.
mywifequitherjob.com/the-dangers-of-selling-on-amazon/
As a core strategy to gobble up market share, Amazon (or more accurately its shareholders) provides huge subsidies to its delivery operation. According to one analysis, Amazon lost $7.2 billion on shipping costs last year alone. While this is clearly great for consumers, it puts many retailers in the untenable position of choosing between ceding market share to Amazon or lowering their prices to uneconomic and unsustainable levels. Most have chosen the latter strategy and are paying the price. The fallout is far from over.
It's hard to argue against innovation. It's hard to argue against greater choice, more convenience and lower prices. And clearly, long-term investors in Amazon have few arguments, while those that have hung in with Macy's, JC Penney and the like are licking their wounds.
Maybe Amazon can sell all this stuff at a loss and make it up on volume. Maybe once they help put many, many retailers out of business and play a big role in the "rationalization" of commercial real estate, Amazon will continue to reduce prices, rather than exploit their emerging monopoly-like power. Maybe we'll all be happy with fewer choices in retail brands. Maybe Amazon's dominance will encourage a new wave of different and more interesting retail models to counter-act the homogenization of retail we are in the midst of.
Maybe.
On the other hand, perhaps we should all be careful what we wish for. Perhaps we should consider that the problem with a race to the bottom is that we might win.
==============================================
Then there are critics of "the digital economy" in education, as the educator below argues..
hackeducation.com/2018/12/31/top-ed-tech-trends-money
=============================================
The above commentators or critics are all serious technologists, educators or journalists etc,
even former company execs, not random ranters off the web. WHich brings us back to the slogan-
move fast and break things, or as one site put it- "Disrupt Africa."
If any willing, take a stab at all oa few questions below if you will:
1) Are the pitfalls noted by the critics above a danger in Europe/US? If so what are implications for Africa?
2) If pitfalls above exist, what strategies can Africa/Africans use to avoid them?
3) Are there any areas in Africa where said pitfalls are in operation?
4) Are there any areas or initiatives where said pitfalls have been overcome?
Please all, thoughtful responses, minimum of personal stuff, snarks, etc etc... Thanks
