Own your own soapbox

I’ve had my own domain, theludwigs.com, for about 25 years. I posted my first post to my blog in October 2001; I think I was using Blogger at the time. I’ve experimented with using my blog for family connections, technology commentary, hobbies, and random things. The content that I posted 25 years ago is still there (though sometimes with formatting problems). These days, I mostly use it to track my book reading.

The great thing about having your own domain is that you own the content and the experience, every nut and bolt of it.  No one can jam in strange posts or funky ads or trollish comments or whatever unless you decide to allow it.  No one can “moderate” your content away; it is all yours.   That is, of course, a huge downside as well; you have to maintain your site and keep it running and deal with all the attendant issues, tho you can choose technologies that make that a lot easier for you.  

Ultimately, though, if you want to communicate your thoughts and voice, you must have your own site. No one else will create a space for you or give you a megaphone without some compromises.

Adam Singer recently wrote “In praise of email” which expresses this spirit as well. In that article he references Erik Hoel, who argues that personal blogs are the best of the internet:

the rising tide that drives people to blogs is that they're one of the last bastions of the “Good Internet.” Social media has become a chore. You get to choose between the banality of censorship or The Elon Show, and there’s nothing in between.

This idea that social media has become a “chore” hits hard with me; increasingly, I get no enjoyment from the experience.  And as a way to share my thoughts and create dialog, social media is terrible — every dialog becomes bitter and strident.  

Social media is a poor soapbox

Many people don’t have their own sites, but instead post content on any one of the various social media sites. I’ve always found that to be an odd choice — feeding your hard-learned content into a brand and experience owned by someone else, with goals that will certainly not be yours. When I started this newsletter, I immediately grabbed my own domain and hosted the content there without a second thought. But many people make the choice to host their voice elsewhere in search of distribution and an audience^[1].

This week, there has been much outrage directed at Meta and Zuckerberg. He has expressed some outrageous opinions and implemented some big changes in his social media properties. Some of those changes might be good, but they are big changes, and he has unilaterally made them, which offends people. This follows prior outrage about what Musk has done with Twitter. And the fate of Tiktok is up in the air.

I don’t feel much outrage because I don’t hold social media in high regard.

• Social media sites are privately owned media properties. They aren’t some noble “commons.” They are entertainment sites.
• Their owners can and will do whatever they want regarding content policy and editorial voice The owners generally aim to engage users using whatever means possible, and outrage drives engagement.
• No one is forcing us to use any of these social networks, and there is increasing evidence that they are bad for many of us.
• And to reiterate my earlier point, if you want to make your voice heard, social media is not a great way to do it. You are at the whims of the network owner and their policies.

So, I don’t buy into the outrage about Meta — their behavior is entirely predictable and expected. Nor do I think we should reward these companies with the level of centrality and importance we give them.

I am far more inspired and learn far more by reading newsletters or books or watching long-form videos. As social networks become ever more the editorial voice of their owners, the only way to ensure your own voice gets out is via your own site and your own email, and the only way to consume the information you want is to go to the source.

Short topics

NVIDIA

NVIDIA has been an excellent student of computing history.  They are pushing the same architecture across their product line — "...the beauty of the NVIDIA model is that while the chip in this system is about 1/40th as powerful as the GB200, it’s still the same architecture that runs the same software ($).”  This is exactly what IBM did oh so many years ago — “System/360 was the first family of computers designed to cover both commercial and scientific applications and a complete range of applications from small to large. The design distinguished between architecture and implementation, allowing IBM to release a suite of compatible designs at different prices. “  A common architecture served IBM well for decades and will serve NVIDIA well.

The threat will come when some new model of computing with new economics comes along — will NVIDIA still be nimble enough to embrace the new model even if it is a threat to their cash cow? Microsoft has successfully pivoted from the PC-centric world to the cloud-centric and mobile-centric world, while Intel did not. I am sure that lesson is not lost on NVIDIA.

DOGE

Shocker, Elon is walking back his DOGE spending cutting goal.   Don Moynihan wrote a scathing assessment of DOGE.   I think it is a waste of Elon’s skill set.  Elon has been great at accelerating progress in EVs and the commercial space industry.  It is foolish to use his time to chase after government waste, and politics will gate the returns from this effort.  We should be focusing him and other talent on our manufacturing gap — accelerating our progress in other commercial fields as he has done in cars and rockets.  Accelerate the construction industry, pharma, agriculture, materials and chemicals, infrastructure, etc.   The benefits of faster economic growth would far outweigh any cost-cutting benefits he might achieve.