The Art advances; the Artisan recedes.
Somewhere in the conversation we never have, lies an issue we never resolve.
You ever notice in the bar someone always says to you, “Hey, can I buy ya a drink?” Say, “No thanks, but can I have the money instead?” Tell him you’re saving up to buy your own goddamn bar.
The western multinational corporations are robbing Eastern Congo’s resources. Anyone using a cellphone knows that.
— Chomsky at UN Press Conference
Who can guess what resources?
After Twitter and Instagram in 2009 and 2011 respectively, Snapchat posed the latest, real threat to Facebook’s omnipresence. To Mark and Facebook, seeing people stop to post a photo to Snapchat instead of Facebook must have been disturbing, and therefore Snapchat needed to be bought. But the very fact that Facebook needed to buy Snapchat is perhaps why Snapchat needed to say no. In posing a real threat to Facebook, Snapchat proved that it may have that one elusive thing that no money can buy: the ability to change how people behave, to become central to their relationships with one another, to re-architect human contact, to be masters of the human domain. The ability to shape the world’s culture is something that Facebook has and doesn’t want to lose, and as evidenced by the buyout offer and rejection, Snapchat has and doesn’t want to lose either. And this, to a founder of a hot startup, is how 3 billion dollars becomes meaningless.