Come on. How many of these companies improve anyone's lives? I doubt the world is any better thanks to Twitter, or Facebook, or Foursquare, certainly not thanks to the various clones, mashups and "me three" companies you see in TechCrunch every day.
Whether or not any of the companies you mentioned (or other vc companies) have made the world better is irrelevant to the question of "Why did Alex react as he did to Justin and Amy's articles?"
Alex provides enough information about his beliefs and about why he thinks those articles conflict with them that I, at least, trust he knows why he reacted the way he did.
What is the point of questioning his level of self-awareness anyway? How does it further the conversation? Really, I don't understand the point of maxklein's comment.
First, he takes issue with the phrase "vocal minority". OK, mISV people are either in the minority or the majority. Why does that matter either way?
Then he ignores the major premise of the article (which I find interesting), and instead psychologizes Alex from behind his computer. What's the point?
The main issue which Alex brings up is far more interesting. What should we value more, personal happiness or improving as many as lives as possible? What organizational structures are most suited to these different goals? Are these goals mutually exclusive, as Alex seems to assume they are?
> Alex provides enough information about his beliefs and about why he thinks those articles conflict with them that I, at least, trust he knows why he reacted the way he did.
Really? I've never met him, but I know plenty of other people who despite providing a lot of information about their beliefs aren't completely candid with themselves about why they're reacting the way they do.
That is a good point, but is it really worth it for a bunch of strangers to debate the issue based on a blog post? I don't understand what anyone has to gain by examining his personal psychological makeup.
On the personal level I know almost nothing about these people (I heard a Mixergy interview with Hoy which was great). My reaction is to the notion that a big company necessarily improves the world more than a small one.
The world is not better because of Twitter or Facebook? They played a role in the recent revolutions and help people connect with family and friends. Why do you think these governments tried to shut down the internet?
They may not have been helpful to you but to others they are.
This is really mostly MSM/blogosphere hype. These revolutions started when people set themselves afire, and risked their lives confronting the army/police. FB might have helped (Youtube probably even more, Twitter almost trivial) but in the same way that a cellphone would.
Governments are now using social media to track dissidents as well, so it's not at all clear the net effect it positive.
Agree with your second point. But Twitter helped spread the YouTube videos so I doubt Twitter is trivial. Communication, whether it's the Internet or cell-phone, helped the revolutions by connecting people and organizing them. But yes, we don't know the net effect and I think it's impossible to know.
There are a lot of people who spend a lot of time on Twitter and breathlessly tell everyone that it's great. Apparently it's not useless to them (although I've never used it, and you probably didn't either), and I don't think there are many big downsides to Twitter. (I'm not so sure that the "no harm done" applies to Facebook, in particular wrt privacy.)
A lot of people are breathlessly excited about Lady Gaga. Does her existence improve the world? Maybe, for them. Would they be worse off if they never heard of her? Probably they'd find someone else to be breathless about.
Note that the smaller Freckle/etc apps are the ones people actually pay for.
Are you seriously disputing the ability of music to make people's lives more enjoyable?
By the way, Lady Gaga is something people actually pay for. If I recall right, her personal income was $60M last year. Presumably people paid a lot more than that for her music/entertainment.
I read that as disputing the exclusive ability of any specific performer to make people's lives enjoyable, while all others will not be able to do so.
Before Gaga, people were paying for Madonna. After Gaga, people will be breathlessly excited and pay for someone else. If there was no Gaga, people would be breathlessly excited and pay for someone else yet.
That's exactly what I meant. I love music. I just don't think "people are breathlessly excited about X" means "X is valuable". A lot of people are excited about reality TV.
Being someone who's trying to live by something close Alex's mantra with my startup (CloudFab, in the digital manufacturing space), I actually think all those companies (Fb, Tw, 4sq) provide very societally valuable things.
How awesome is it that I can talk to old friends on Facebook (which does lead to in-person convo!), get great socially-vetted info on Twitter, or find local tips on Foursquare when traveling.
Okay - maybe Zynga is where I draw the line... ;-) it really does seem like like they're hacking our brains like that fluke* that causes ants to get eaten by animals to spread itself.
But still maybe that knowledge helps all of marketing by example...
People had friends and met significant others before the internet. I'm not saying these apps are bad (they are both bad and good) but that in the bottom line the world isn't necessarily better or worse.
Terrible example by me, sure. But do you know of any Middle Eastern revolutions supported by AIM? Long form journalism ala @MayorEmanuel? Any academic studies examining mood on AIM and how it correlates to stock market performance?
