[squeegmeister]

“To Varoufakis, every time you post on X, formerly Twitter, you’re essentially toiling Elon Musk’s estate like a medieval serf. Musk doesn't pay you. But your free labor pays him, in a sense, by increasing the value of his company.”

This sounds disanalogous to me. When you post on twitter, you can be rewarded with engagement and attention and even the possibility of growing your own brand and following. All at no monetary cost to you. Meanwhile, twitter has the costs of paying for servers and infrastructure and salaries of those required to support the site

[Timwi]

Twitter (and other platforms like it) self-impose those costs on themselves in order to maintain the feudalist structure. If all software were just open-source, anyone could run their own Twitter and make it interoperable. Except this already exists and is called Mastodon, or more generally, the Fediverse. The fact that billions of people still choose to use Twitter instead of the sensible alternative shows that the feudalist gambit (using algorithms to make people angry and turn on each other) is working.

[darawk]

> Twitter (and other platforms like it) self-impose those costs on themselves in order to maintain the feudalist structure.

No they don't. The site would not exist if they did not "self impose" those costs. By simple analogy, which self-imposed costs were paid by feudal lords?

> The fact that billions of people still choose to use Twitter instead of the sensible alternative shows that the feudalist gambit (using algorithms to make people angry and turn on each other) is working.

It shows that people prefer Twitter to Mastodon. It does not show anything about why they prefer one to the other. Your reason may be a factor, but there is no prima facie evidence that it is the dispositive factor. There is quite a lot of evidence that other factors are substantially more relevant.

[pas]

According to Apptopia analysis, X/Twitter is estimated to have around 121 million daily active users, significantly lower compared to company announcements.

Elon of course says that it's around 300M and all-time-high was 550M in 2023. (Whatever that means.)

[gizmo]

The experience for users is just much much better if everybody is on the same platform. And the platform operator has to deal with spam, abuse, and compliance issues. Federated platforms haven't even attempted to seriously deal with this. Twitter has thousands of people working on this stuff and open source can't replicate that. You need many lawyers just to respond to overbearing governments demanding immediate censorship.

It's not some feudalist "rage bait" conspiracy that keeps people on twitter. Federated software just sucks in comparison. Twitter, despite all its flaws, is the only game in town.

[non-chalad]

How much does the electricity cost to run the servers? How much for the maintenance of those computers running the software? How about rental fees for the space they are kept in, air conditioning, sewer, taxes? Nah… doesn't exist. It's self-imposed feudalism.

[ilayn]

Whatever you get out for your own self is a secondary by-product. You are bounded to that platform to get what you get and cannot leave by taking what you already contributed.

While you are benefiting from certain social returns, you are also the reason why someone else's brand is growing by the same argument. Hence the platform is doing nothing but increasing its importance for its matchmaking value. That is the premise. At some critical threshold, the platform achieves the "I'm too big to bother with individual users" and declares the feudal lordship (remember similar Stackoverflow and Reddit dramas with "We do as we please" attitude and nothing happened to the platforms because users could not give up - the following mod saga for reddit and so on and accepted their fate). It already happened with social media platforms long time ago.

[bdowling]

> cannot leave by taking what you already contributed.

Of course you can. Twitter/X doesn’t own your tweets. You can take them and post them somewhere else if you want.

This is all clearly stated in the Twitter/X terms of service. https://twitter.com/en/tos

[lm28469]

> you can be rewarded with engagement and attention and even the possibility of growing your own brand and following.

I'm reading this over and over trying to comprehend how we ended up in a world in which this sentence isn't satirical

[Beldin]

I figured it was a troll attempt. Judging by the replies, I'm not sure if the troller would be pleased (quantity) or sad (lack of outrage).

ETA: The idea of a troller losing faith in humanity because his trolls are taken seriously but do not stir up emotions is somewhat funny.

[exe34]

It's like the old "do it for me for free and you'll get exposure!"

[Lutger]

> When you post on twitter, you can be rewarded with engagement and attention and even the possibility of growing your own brand and following

wikipedia on serfdom:

>Serfs who occupied a plot of land were required to work for the lord of the manor who owned that land. In return, they were entitled to protection, justice, and the right to cultivate certain fields within the manor to maintain their own subsistence.

[eesmith]

A serf working the field is still rewarded with (part of) the harvest, the knowledge of having done good work, and the respect of neighbors. Praskovia Kovalyova-Zhemchugova "was a Russian serf actress and soprano opera singer", with her own brand and following ("Figes describes her as Russia's first "superstar"); quotes from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Praskovia_Kovalyova-Zhemchugov...

I think it's a tricky argument since there the feudal system was much more complicated than, say, sharecropping or tenant farming, as the lord was obliged to protect his serfs and protect their right to use the land. I think sharecropping is a better analogy.

It's also tricky as serfdom and feudalism cover a wide range of systems which are not well described in popular culture. Serfdom in 1800s Russia was far different from serfdom in 1400s England.

When you write "All at no monetary cost to you", remember that serfs mostly paid in time and work, not money. And the lord had costs as well, like the cost of providing military protection.

[pas]

Serfs got protection (and other services, like justice! uh.) from the feudal lord. I don't like Varoufakis' typical oversimplification, but this one doesn't seem that bad.

[tored]

But I get no protection from these tech overlords, they can close me down at anytime or give my data away to third party or the government without my knowledge.

[red-iron-pine]

they also tended to live in poverty and die horribly. this occasionally led them to rise up and kill their lords; the medieval social contract was constantly in flux. but make no mistake it led to absolutism.

[usrnm]

And serfs were allowed to work the land belonging to the lord and produce food for themselves and their families.

[kjksf]

"serfs were peasants who were bound to the land they worked on and were under the authority of the landowners or lords"

Last time I checked Twitter (the supposed lord) doesn't have the power to make you (the supposed serf) post on Twitter.

That is, I would say, a crucial distinction that makes the serf comparison ultra ridiculous.

Then again if Varoufakis said that the relationship between Twitter and its users is based on mutual benefit but Twitter gets more benefit, then it wouldn't make you as angry as saying that they people are serfs of techno-feudalists.

[mschuster91]

> This sounds disanalogous to me. When you post on twitter, you can be rewarded with engagement and attention and even the possibility of growing your own brand and following.

As someone who co-runs a >>70k account: Yes, that is possible, but it's very very rare for those creating a following primarily via Twitter to actually make money with it. Maybe if you got an 0nlyfans account. Meanwhile, the content you create lures in other people and with them, eyeballs that Twitter can make money with by selling advertising time to these people.

> Meanwhile, twitter has the costs of paying for servers and infrastructure and salaries of those required to support the site

The legitimate costs required to run something like Twitter or Whatsapp can be pretty darn small. Whatsapp ran with 50 employees up until 1 billion (!) users [1]. The point is to not unfocus too much - for all the bad Musk did to Twitter, he did show that there indeed was a lot of dead weight hanging around the place, no wonder it was hemorraging money.

[1] https://blog.quastor.org/p/whatsapp-scaled-1-billion-users-5...

[blitzar]

> no wonder it was hemorraging money

I love how history has been rewritten such that a company that was profitable was "hemorraging money".

Now that they are actually hemorraging money under new management it is somehow a case study in profitability.

If everyone clicks their heels three times and says it - of course it will be true.

[r0ckarong]

> All at no monetary cost to you.

Except the fee for the blue tick. And whatever they charge you if you actually want to place ads for users instead of "pushing content" to those that follow you.

I also don't think the serf image is perfect but there clearly is an "access level" difference to where value is created and extracted.

[iamcurious]

If you depend on that brand and following for your livelihood and they arbitrarily ban you, what rights do you have?

[theGeatZhopa]

6 months ago. I was dependent on my Boss for my livelihood. Worked there for 14 years. But they arbitrarily fired me. What rights do I have?

I guess, when I was dependent on that brand and they ban me - yeah, that's life. Happens millions of times to millions. So what? End of life?

[tmcb]

Medieval serfs could be rewarded with food housing at no monetary cost as well, but it didn't make the system any less unjust.

Also, having the company pay for infrastructure costs does not necessarily imply that users are getting the upper hand in this deal. They are providing "value" (quotes intentional) to customers at the lowest cost possible, otherwise it would not be a viable business.

[bluetomcat]

> you can be rewarded with engagement and attention and even the possibility of growing your own brand and following

Ultimately, it's a zero-sum game for all the "posters". The attention and time of your following is finite, and other posters are fighting for it, too. The "cloud algorithm" defines the rules of the game and matches your content to its consumers.

[grimblee]

Exvept you actually pay with your time, both by thinking, writing amd following stuff on that platform wheb you could have done something probably more productive, but also with your brain time watching ads. Not to mention ads will ultimately shape you into buying something, no matter how smart you think you are.

[pas]

No, it's not. If there's good quality content, scintillating discussions, amazing insights and whatnot on twiXter it will attract more users. If all of that is there but the toxic sludge level in the cesspool is already at the dear users' elbows, then it probably discourage new (and old) users from jumping in.

[ctrw]

So long as the user base is growing its not zero sum.

[pipes]

It also ignores a simple fact, we do not have to post on twitter. It is a choice, it is a free exchange, presumably the people who post on twitter enjoy it and Elon makes money. Serfs, well they were forced to work someone else's land and in return they maybe got enough to eat. It's a ridiculous comparison.

[ben_w]

> presumably the people who post on twitter enjoy it

I do not share this presumption.

https://youtu.be/rE3j_RHkqJc?si=Wr4GgIzWyA-lhsOU

Disagreement (like mine with you :P) also drives engagement, and quite possibly more than positive vibes do.

[TheOtherHobbes]

It's damn near impossible to work as an independent creator of books, music, art, streaming videos of all kinds, and so on, without a social media presence.

Many people do not enjoy SM at all, but the alternative is zero income.

[drewcoo]

> This sounds disanalogous to me

Varoufakis always misrepresents capitalism and feudalism. That's the only way his ideas can get their undeserved attention.

Peasants worked the land for their lords but also for themselves and their families. Peasant revolts were not unheard of but peasants were generally treated fairly enough to avoid revolts.

Rent-seeking does not magically transform capitalism into feudalism. Capitalism is built on the idea of "investing" capital and "profiting" from others. And in fact, there's the concept of rentier capitalism.

[krapp]

>When you post on twitter, you can be rewarded with engagement and attention and even the possibility of growing your own brand and following. All at no monetary cost to you.

Yes we call that "being paid in exposure" and outside of Silicon Valley it's widely recognized as a scam.

Also bear in mind that content and engagement serves the purpose of driving ad revenue and creating a monetizable social graph, so it's less a "reward" and more "unpaid labor."

[m463]

Is reddit is a better example.

People post and comments add up.

But ads are being served, people are being tracked, and eventually the data is sold so AI models can be trained on everything.

But the main product (in silicon valley) is stock, which all the reddit folks have been selling wildly the past few weeks.

[soco]

Also a serf status can be boosted by receiving a visit from the lord, which has quite some costs with his court.

[tiborsaas]

> Musk doesn't pay you.

What is this then? https://twitter.com/levelsio/status/1770239673014595718