I couldn’t disagree more. Uber and Airbnb disrupted institutional protections that were created out of needs that over time we forgot. Uber drivers make significantly less money than taxi drivers. Airbnbs aren’t subject to the same standards that hotels must uphold in terms of safety.
These disruptions are just workarounds for regulations that were created for real reasons. The gig economy makes earning a living more precarious.
Thank you for the comment and happy to debate this! I can see your argument in terms of Uber - but my understanding with Uber is that the problem there is that Uber simply takes too steep of a cut for themselves while also artificially lowering prices for consumers. If one of the more ethically-minded companies - Lyft or Juno - were to prevail, drivers would be ok. In any case, I'm not sure Uber is worse than the old system of cities artificially controlling supply, taking a very high cut in the form of medallions and effectively denying work to lots of people who could easily have made some money as drivers.
In terms of Airbnb, I have trouble even seeing the counter-argument. I've had hundreds of Airbnb experiences both as guest and host, and it's worked like a charm - and is much more humanizing than hotels. Maybe there are some safety concerns in the very down-market Airbnbs but I suspect that's not different from cheap motels (which can be very dangerous). I also have no idea why homeowners or tenants shouldn't be allowed to make money from the places where they live.
Btw my post isn't advocating for Uber or Airbnb so much as saying that the impetus for the gig economy is coming from a different direction from where we've been looking for it - that much of it derives from longstanding 'Third World' practices that have their own positives and negatives - but do tend to spread income earning potential around to more people.
Anyway, happy to hear more on your counter-argument if you like!
Thanks for the thoughtful and kind reply. I spent the last few days wrestling with a long, thought out response.
But then I had a different thought: I absolutely adore your writing and your ideas, and if I'm going to take you up on the generous offer of having a back and forth, I'd much rather do that in the service of refining and discussing one of your many topics that I love. I don't want to cash in these chips on a point of contention.
That's not because I shy from debate, I've just done my time as a keyboard warrior and I read Castalia because it's the opposite of that. It's a sanctuary, not a battlefield.
After reading this incredible post by Freddie DeBoer, I concluded that I want to engage with what I love. (But old habits die hard!)
I'm guilty in the past of being one of those folks on the internet who readily speaks up to disagree. That's not to say I expect to create an echo chamber, it's just that I'd rather quibble with you abut something that doesn't tickle my rage-meter like the gig economy.
In the spirit of what I believe this post was created, I absolutely agree that we, in the developed world, have much to learn from the practices of the developing world, from strong family ties to generous hospitality and kindness. In that spirit, I wish you a wonderful day and I look forward to your next post!
Many thanks for the comment. Sorry for the delay in replying. I needed a moment to organize my thoughts.
Yes, I think this is absolutely the right framing - I really agree with DeBoer saying that the question is "how to improve the internet." I suspect the underlying truth of the internet is that it IS more egalitarian, that 'regular people' DO have more power at least to change civic discourse. And as that greater freedom and power emerge, part of what we have to deal with is an accumulated trauma from several generations of people basically not being able to say anything at all in public space. When I think about what the media landscape looked like circa say 1960, it just strikes me as horrifically unequal - a few Cronkite-ish people listened to religiously, and then for just about everyone else 'getting one's name in the paper' was like the highlight of a person's life. As these new tools come to be more available to us, there's a period in which we sort of lash out, 'troll,' get into 'Twitter rage,' take out a certain residual anger, etc, before settling down to a more civil discourse.
For me, the phase of my journey that I'm in is that I'm just now discovering the joys of being a keyboard warrior. It is fun! And (since I never got oriented to Twitter) I'm just getting into this mindset of the internet as a giant debating hall. That certainly appeals to a part of my personality and I think it's ok so long as certain parameters are observed within discourse.
But. Yes. The far more important work is for people to figure out who they want to be and how to express themselves with integrity. I hadn't realized that DeBoer had gone through the transition he describes; that's really interesting. Thank you for calling Castalia a 'sanctuary.' That's a really beautiful word and is at the heart of what I was hoping to do here.
I think what we're all sort of waking up to is that the internet isn't escapism in the way we initially thought it was. That the internet has a long memory and it actually does capture something of our essence, whether we want it to or not. So the challenge of this particular era is about taking that seriously and figuring out how to bring our best selves to it - which often means going against the grain of 'virality,' of inbuilt incentives within the platforms themselves.
Anyway! Lots to think about. I really enjoy engaging with you here. Really appreciate how deeply conscientious you are.
I don't know that Third Worldization is anything new. "Third World" literature throughout the 20th century by Westerners is quite rich, from Rudyard Kipling and Pearl S. Buck to J.G. Ballard and all the "developing country" writers the publishing industry is trying to popularize now. Those phenomena were referred to by different names, certainly, but it was basically the same thing: exotic inspiration for use in the "First World." But there is a definite increase, and I think you're right about the discomfort of the Boomers. (Though I think in the Bay Area, there is less of a disdain towards imports: we love our San Francisco Chinatown. Or we did when I was growing up.) And I think you're right about under-the-table innovations making a bigger difference.
The questions that come to my mind are: 1) is this increase symptomatic of a bankruptcy of inspiration and ideas in the West?; and 2) even if it might look like reverse colonialism (which is happening in other parts of the West) could it also be symptomatic of a kind of transglobal brain drain? After all, Zimride was not founded by Zimbabweans but inspired by them. (I'll admit I'm asking them slightly rhetorically, since I would say yes and yes: but they are big issues as well, with a lot of angles to them)
By the way, if you haven't already and ever felt like it, I'd be interested in reading about Gabon. I hear it's a beautiful country, safe by African standards and has beautiful beaches. Capital: Libreville, language: French. But don't know much else besides that.
Thank you for the comment! Absolutely agreed. I don't think 'Third Worldization' is anything new. There has been a really good trend especially in art history - some recent exhibits, etc - emphasizing how much of what we think of as 'the Enlightenment' was really cross-cultural trade, with various ideas (usually unattributed) from around the world reaching Europe and stimulating creative thinking. There's an idea, for instance, that David Hume got his primary insights from a footnote about Tibetan Buddhism; that much of the egalitarian Enlightenment thinking came from Native Americans (this is the leading thesis of Graeber and Wengrow's The Dawn of Everything). We've just been a little on the slow side to recognize the trend in our own era. The word 'development' always means 'developing' from third world to first.
I think the dynamic I'm describing is basically all to the good. It's a healthy side of cultural exchange but without the exploitation that comes with colonialism. The only issue I have is that there's a tendency to skip over the attribution - I doubt, for instance, that many Lyft riders make the connection to transit in Zimbabwe.
Thank you for the prompt! I'd love to write about Gabon - and have a bunch of notes stashed away about it. Some of the economics are very screwed up (and the history of French colonialism there is pretty dark), but it's a beautiful country and culture. I have almost nothing but good things to say about it.
I couldn’t disagree more. Uber and Airbnb disrupted institutional protections that were created out of needs that over time we forgot. Uber drivers make significantly less money than taxi drivers. Airbnbs aren’t subject to the same standards that hotels must uphold in terms of safety.
These disruptions are just workarounds for regulations that were created for real reasons. The gig economy makes earning a living more precarious.
Hi Sean,
Thank you for the comment and happy to debate this! I can see your argument in terms of Uber - but my understanding with Uber is that the problem there is that Uber simply takes too steep of a cut for themselves while also artificially lowering prices for consumers. If one of the more ethically-minded companies - Lyft or Juno - were to prevail, drivers would be ok. In any case, I'm not sure Uber is worse than the old system of cities artificially controlling supply, taking a very high cut in the form of medallions and effectively denying work to lots of people who could easily have made some money as drivers.
In terms of Airbnb, I have trouble even seeing the counter-argument. I've had hundreds of Airbnb experiences both as guest and host, and it's worked like a charm - and is much more humanizing than hotels. Maybe there are some safety concerns in the very down-market Airbnbs but I suspect that's not different from cheap motels (which can be very dangerous). I also have no idea why homeowners or tenants shouldn't be allowed to make money from the places where they live.
Btw my post isn't advocating for Uber or Airbnb so much as saying that the impetus for the gig economy is coming from a different direction from where we've been looking for it - that much of it derives from longstanding 'Third World' practices that have their own positives and negatives - but do tend to spread income earning potential around to more people.
Anyway, happy to hear more on your counter-argument if you like!
Best,
Sam
Hi Sam,
Thanks for the thoughtful and kind reply. I spent the last few days wrestling with a long, thought out response.
But then I had a different thought: I absolutely adore your writing and your ideas, and if I'm going to take you up on the generous offer of having a back and forth, I'd much rather do that in the service of refining and discussing one of your many topics that I love. I don't want to cash in these chips on a point of contention.
That's not because I shy from debate, I've just done my time as a keyboard warrior and I read Castalia because it's the opposite of that. It's a sanctuary, not a battlefield.
After reading this incredible post by Freddie DeBoer, I concluded that I want to engage with what I love. (But old habits die hard!)
https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/p/to-slightly-reduce-how-much-the-internet
I'm guilty in the past of being one of those folks on the internet who readily speaks up to disagree. That's not to say I expect to create an echo chamber, it's just that I'd rather quibble with you abut something that doesn't tickle my rage-meter like the gig economy.
In the spirit of what I believe this post was created, I absolutely agree that we, in the developed world, have much to learn from the practices of the developing world, from strong family ties to generous hospitality and kindness. In that spirit, I wish you a wonderful day and I look forward to your next post!
Sean
Sean,
Many thanks for the comment. Sorry for the delay in replying. I needed a moment to organize my thoughts.
Yes, I think this is absolutely the right framing - I really agree with DeBoer saying that the question is "how to improve the internet." I suspect the underlying truth of the internet is that it IS more egalitarian, that 'regular people' DO have more power at least to change civic discourse. And as that greater freedom and power emerge, part of what we have to deal with is an accumulated trauma from several generations of people basically not being able to say anything at all in public space. When I think about what the media landscape looked like circa say 1960, it just strikes me as horrifically unequal - a few Cronkite-ish people listened to religiously, and then for just about everyone else 'getting one's name in the paper' was like the highlight of a person's life. As these new tools come to be more available to us, there's a period in which we sort of lash out, 'troll,' get into 'Twitter rage,' take out a certain residual anger, etc, before settling down to a more civil discourse.
For me, the phase of my journey that I'm in is that I'm just now discovering the joys of being a keyboard warrior. It is fun! And (since I never got oriented to Twitter) I'm just getting into this mindset of the internet as a giant debating hall. That certainly appeals to a part of my personality and I think it's ok so long as certain parameters are observed within discourse.
But. Yes. The far more important work is for people to figure out who they want to be and how to express themselves with integrity. I hadn't realized that DeBoer had gone through the transition he describes; that's really interesting. Thank you for calling Castalia a 'sanctuary.' That's a really beautiful word and is at the heart of what I was hoping to do here.
I think what we're all sort of waking up to is that the internet isn't escapism in the way we initially thought it was. That the internet has a long memory and it actually does capture something of our essence, whether we want it to or not. So the challenge of this particular era is about taking that seriously and figuring out how to bring our best selves to it - which often means going against the grain of 'virality,' of inbuilt incentives within the platforms themselves.
Anyway! Lots to think about. I really enjoy engaging with you here. Really appreciate how deeply conscientious you are.
All very best,
Sam
I don't know that Third Worldization is anything new. "Third World" literature throughout the 20th century by Westerners is quite rich, from Rudyard Kipling and Pearl S. Buck to J.G. Ballard and all the "developing country" writers the publishing industry is trying to popularize now. Those phenomena were referred to by different names, certainly, but it was basically the same thing: exotic inspiration for use in the "First World." But there is a definite increase, and I think you're right about the discomfort of the Boomers. (Though I think in the Bay Area, there is less of a disdain towards imports: we love our San Francisco Chinatown. Or we did when I was growing up.) And I think you're right about under-the-table innovations making a bigger difference.
The questions that come to my mind are: 1) is this increase symptomatic of a bankruptcy of inspiration and ideas in the West?; and 2) even if it might look like reverse colonialism (which is happening in other parts of the West) could it also be symptomatic of a kind of transglobal brain drain? After all, Zimride was not founded by Zimbabweans but inspired by them. (I'll admit I'm asking them slightly rhetorically, since I would say yes and yes: but they are big issues as well, with a lot of angles to them)
By the way, if you haven't already and ever felt like it, I'd be interested in reading about Gabon. I hear it's a beautiful country, safe by African standards and has beautiful beaches. Capital: Libreville, language: French. But don't know much else besides that.
Hi Felix,
Thank you for the comment! Absolutely agreed. I don't think 'Third Worldization' is anything new. There has been a really good trend especially in art history - some recent exhibits, etc - emphasizing how much of what we think of as 'the Enlightenment' was really cross-cultural trade, with various ideas (usually unattributed) from around the world reaching Europe and stimulating creative thinking. There's an idea, for instance, that David Hume got his primary insights from a footnote about Tibetan Buddhism; that much of the egalitarian Enlightenment thinking came from Native Americans (this is the leading thesis of Graeber and Wengrow's The Dawn of Everything). We've just been a little on the slow side to recognize the trend in our own era. The word 'development' always means 'developing' from third world to first.
I think the dynamic I'm describing is basically all to the good. It's a healthy side of cultural exchange but without the exploitation that comes with colonialism. The only issue I have is that there's a tendency to skip over the attribution - I doubt, for instance, that many Lyft riders make the connection to transit in Zimbabwe.
Thank you for the prompt! I'd love to write about Gabon - and have a bunch of notes stashed away about it. Some of the economics are very screwed up (and the history of French colonialism there is pretty dark), but it's a beautiful country and culture. I have almost nothing but good things to say about it.
All best,
Sam