Even if we take for granted that Tesla is a net positive, Tesla isn't SV. For every Tesla there is a Facebook that is a net negative. Just ask Myanmar.
> Tesla isn't SV. For every Tesla there is a Facebook
Totally agree. But looking at specifics, and dissecting why they work or do not, helps suss out patterns.
For example, Tesla’s benefits are amplified—perhaps even characterised—by their ecosystem effect. That doesn’t happen when you have a quasi-monopoly like Facebook. On the other hand, their downsides are largely a function of lying. That’s common across Silicon Valley, and may similarly have a systematic treatment. (Or, at least, if you’re replicating the model, consider removing that in your iteration.)
TV helped changing quite a few regimes throughout history, and not always for the better. However, I do not think anybody would dispute the fact that TV was, overall, a net positive for mankind.
Same with Silicon Valley. There are certain negative aspects to it but overall we are discussing this on the amazing supercomputer it created, with software it wrote, on platforms it maintains [1]. I seriously doubt the majority of people would want to go back to a world without SV's innovations.
[1] of course it wasn't SV alone, there were many contributions from all around the world, it's just that SV spearheaded the changes and lead us on this path.
I can't recall him ever writing black on white that TV was a net negative for humanity, but the thesis of Neil Postmans Amusing Ourselves to Death seems to heavily imply it. It is - as far as I can tell - a pretty influencial thesis on these matters.
I am sure some aristocrats somewhere are pissed off that we’re not all listening to Bach and reading Kant for our entertainment, but that does not make TV a net negative. It just shows once again that we (as a society) should never give power to various “experts” over our individual choices.
Do you mean the military dictatorship? I’m not sure if they are reliable sources. But yes, Myanmar blames lots of their ethnic violence problems on Facebook, it couldn’t be bad governance at all right?
As with most things it's probably a combination of factors, one of which is Facebook essentially monopolising internet access in the country while stoking the fire.
YouTube would also be popular, in most of SEA the internet means mostly Facebook and YouTube, to the chagrin of Chinese internet services who can’t even compete outside of China in their own backyard (well, TikTok is hugely popular there, as it is here, Myanmar is also blaming TikTok and YouTube for ethnic violence, so it just isn’t Facebook). But I’m not sure how Facebooks‘s popularity equals a monopoly, they aren't engaging in anti competitive behavior, the infrastructure is free for use by competitors. The only thing Facebook puts in beyond other markets is localization and marketing.
Because they offered free service only to Facebook in developing countries (including Myanmar) using their FreeBASIC program[1], thereby establishing a defacto monopoly and building a anti-competetive moat against any competitors.
That would only be true if other companies couldn’t do that as well, like google did. And also, this hadn’t impeded TikTok’s ability to take market share away from Google when it became popular.
