that's an interesting perspective. but still... although the users are not receiving any direct monetary benefits, they are still deriving value from system, by using it as a means of entertainment and social networking. so facebook is providing a service, and people are using that service for their own benefit. it doesn't seem like cognitive slavery.
The point of view is rather extreme, but he's also touching something relevant at the end of the article, and may give some ideas.
the term 'cognitive slavery' doesn't apply that much to google, i think. They may not create content or jobs, but they provide a lot of tools (cheap ads, free hosting) empowering a lot of small businesses and giving them something they wouldn't normally have access to (as a designer, i complete my clients website with a lot of google tools, and they very often express their amazement at the added value). So that's a point for them.
You're right. I'm normally first in the Facebook-bashing line, but suggesting that Facebook should pay it's users because they provide network effects is like suggesting the phone companies should pay users for hosting terminals. Or the post office should pay you for having a letterbox.
There's an interesting reversal in that statement. Historically, we host our letterbox or our phone terminal, and we buy equipment and such to do it with. (mailbox and phone).
The post and phone networks provided connectivity, but not the place. Here, facebook is providing the place, but not the connectivity (users do that, by buying their internet connection), and the difference doesn't help the comparison
Precisely. The author uses the term "slavery" while completely ignoring the fact that the users are choosing to contribute their time and energy. Clearly they believe it is worth it.
