Astral Codex Ten

MySpace

4 min read

MySpace

Article

MySpace is a recurring organization in the Astral Codex Ten archive, appearing 2 times across 2 issues between May 04, 2022 and September 22, 2022. The archive places it in contexts such as “Substack probably remembers the history of MySpace vs. Facebook”; “there was a site called MySpace which was on top for about two years”. It most often appears alongside Apple, facebook, Adam Neumann.

Metadata

  • Category: Organizations
  • Mention count: 2
  • Issue count: 2
  • First seen: May 04, 2022
  • Last seen: September 22, 2022

Appears In

Source Context

Recovered passages from the original issue text. When the raw archive preserved outbound links inside the source passage, they are listed directly under the quote.

Why Do People Prefer My Old Blog's Layout To Substack's?
May 04, 2022 · Original source
Substack probably remembers the history of MySpace vs. Facebook. MySpace let people customize their page however they wanted, and most people made them into some sort of <blink>-tag-related monstrosity. Facebook gave everyone a consistent minimalist design that let people focus on the content, and took over the world. I’m not (exactly) questioning Substack’s decision not to make blog layout very customizable. But how come their standard non-customizable layout is (apparently) worse than my old layout? If they forced everyone into the standard non-customizable layout of 2015 SSC, would that be a straight utility gain?
Highlights From The Comments On Billionaire Replaceability
September 22, 2022 · Original source
I think this is actually a significant problem w/ Scott's last argument - the founders of Friendster and Myspace aren't infamously super-rich, because unlike Zuck, they were not able to keep their thing going strong, in the face of competition, over a long period of time. Getting in first is a huge advantage - but then competition comes in and challenges you. If you don't rise to that challenge, you may walk away with some I-did-it-first money, but the competition will wind up getting the big pot. If you consistently whoop the competition, it's either because you're providing better value, or because you're shrewder at business (this latter part is something the left can perhaps legit complain about, but it's a hard thing to correct accurately). To the extent you're providing better value than all the other competitors who come along over the years, you should reap proportionate rewards. So it is w/ amazon - no one else has 2 day shipping afaik. This accords w/ a general statement about profit margins and competition - low competition should naturally lead to high profit margins, because you're apparently doing something so hard or risky that hardly anyone else can manage to pull it off (this argument falls apart completely when you have low competition because you're exploiting regulation, e.g. IP laws, or when you have a true monopoly).
Also, I wonder how long the Friendster/MySpace example should stay valid for. If Facebook reigns unchallenged for the next millennium, will people still say “Yes, but once in elden days upon Earth-That-Was there was a site called MySpace which was on top for about two years and then Facebook beat it, so it’s not a natural monopoly! We could still get a replacement at any time!” I’m not claiming I am sure Facebook is a natural monopoly. But surely we should be updating our chance of this a little for each year that goes by without it being replaced. How much?