TWIT 844: Christina Needs It

Beep boop - this is a robot. A new show has been posted to TWiT…

What are your thoughts about today’s show? We’d love to hear from you!

Great panel. The last three shows have been outstanding. Not implying that others shows haven’t been, but these last few have been even better.


Leo mentioned that Facebook “may be an amplifier” for people’s worse tendencies. I’d point out that social media and other modern communications technology allows people to be ginned up about their pet issues all the time.

If you’re a Sierra Club member in the 1990s, maybe you get a newsletter a few times a year from the a local organization and maybe you attend an annual meeting to rally for the cause or subscribe to some “green” magazines. Today you can follow dozens of different environmentalist pages and get fresh inspiration multiple times a day.

That regular reinforcement, with no rebuttal, eventually makes people more certain of their beliefs.

I agree that this particular thing is not a Facebook problem per se. You could do the same thing with ConstantContact email newsletters. The main thing social media makes easier is proselytizing by using the “share” function.

1 Like

Always happy to see Daniel Rubino on the show. If I had to compare him to another regular host I’d say he’s two parts Rene and one part Paul.

1 Like

Man, at minute 17:00, the panel discusses how the antitrust case against Microsoft shook the company in the instant when Google and Facebook came up and, implicitly, how Microsoft was kept from (because they won the case in the end, according to Christina) focusing on the social web.

I shudder to think that we came that close to something alike to Google and Facebook possibly being Microsoft products, further cementing the tech oligopol into a monopol. To me, that’s the best argument for antitrust as a frequently and happily applied methodology to avoid tech monopolies.

In a way, what we have today truly is the best possible world. There were alternatives.

One way to hurt Facebook would be to go after Mark Zuckerburg and sue him for at least 60% of his wealth

That probably wouldn’t have happened. I mean, sure, Microsoft would have tried. @Leo seems to give the anti-trust stuff too much weight since, as Bill Gates got older and eventually stepped down as CEO, the company would probably have changed anyway and I don’t really understand how Facebook would not have still been a thing

I really don’t understand who the iPad Pro is for because if you buy the 12.9 inch one and put a keyboard with it then you might as well buy the MacBook Air.

As much as I agree that creators should be paid, I must say I’m not sure they deserve as much as they get. They work hard, sure, but so do a lot of other people. It’s not that I don’t think folks should get paid as much as they do, I just look at TV presenters and YouTube stars and think “do you really deserve as much as you make?” since, although your costs will be high, it seems like we value content creators higher than other people in society who, arguably, work just as hard

People who prefer iOS? People who want a great tablet some or much of the time and don’t need legacy applications? That’s not me, but my iPad Pro 11” has mostly replaced my company laptop when I’m out of the house.


Hmm. But on what basis? There are no regulations, so they did not cross any boundaries.

Facebook could have been bought early by Microsoft if they have had their wits together at the time.

I fully appreciate the point that Christina made: many creators that look like and are branded like a one-person-operation run something akin to little TV stations with employed teams. A few millions in turnover is necessary to run this profitably and account for the risk involved in doing something innovative.

For TV presenters, it’s a different kind of thing - they are employees. YouTube stars are entrepreneurs that bear the cost and risk of their operations.

I don’t think it’s that, per se. It’s just that these people work in a field in which they can serialise and scale their input (facetime with a camera) to millions of people who, each, value it about a buck’s worth each month. If they are really eager and maximise their camera time, millions of people value it five bucks’ worth each month. Voila: millions of turnover. The nurse in the hospital does more important and valued work, but she can only serialise or scale her work to maybe a dozen patients. At a several hundred bucks of value per patient and month, she’ll be making her five to seven thousand bucks each month (obviously ballparking figures here). Or you’re an Amazon worker, were born with only two hands and can only lug so many packages around. Then you don’t scale and don’t make much per package.

To get rich, you need to scale. If you are in a field that does not allow you to do that, there’s no getting rich. I agree it’s disappointing that the terms “deserve” and “make” don’t really go hand in hand when comparing entirely different levels of income. Then, it’s all about the economic mechanics that determine how money is made.

Of course, best is to be rich to begin with. Then you don’t have to do anything, live off of returns of investments, maybe don’t deserve any of it, but still make most. Conversely, if you don’t make much money, many costs of living (e.g., rent per sq foot) even increase. It’s a peculiar system. (Don’t get me started that this clashes so beautifully with the often proclaimed Judeo-Christian roots and values of Western societies.)

Or, to give it a less disgruntled spin: “Let’s just all not get rich and have fun - together!” :slight_smile:

Boy, did I get carried away likely preaching to the choir - sorry guys. Interesting topic, however.


Also, people who need a touch screen / pencil for creative work, something the Mac line still doesn’t offer (without external devices, like a Cintiq).


I still want a Mac that’s like the Surface Studio. Sigh…


I agree. If you look at Simon Whistler, for example, he has a dozen or so channels on YouTube, puts out at least one show a day on average. He has script writers and researchers who prepare the shows and post-production people who put in background images and videos and edit everything together into a cohesive whole. I’ve no idea how much “he” earns, but a lot of it goes to the whole team.

Gamers sitting at a rig, doing livecasts is another matter, but they still need decent rigs and the relevant streaming hardware, game subs and in-app purchases etc.

I believe, the ratio for an employee is it to at least double their salary, to find out how much they actually cost the company - taxes, unemployment contributions, pension, medical insurance, holiday cover, workspace, heating, electricity etc.


On the basis that, if you wanted to hurt the company, that’s perhaps the only way.but i agree

1 Like