diff --git a/README.org b/README.org
index f2d0970..b506a35 100644
--- a/README.org
+++ b/README.org
@@ -208,19 +208,6 @@ If the problem is users receiving unwanted messages, perhaps the
 solution comes in making intentional social connections.
 But how can we get from here to there?
 
-** Did we borrow the wrong assumptions?
-
-#+BEGIN_QUOTE
-  "What if we're making the wrong assumptions about our social networks?
-  What if we're focusing on breadth, when we really should be focusing
-  on depth?"
-    -- from a conversation with Evan Prodromou, initial designer of
-       both ActivityPub and OStatus' protcol designs
-#+END_QUOTE
-
-# - social networks: breadth vs depth?
-#   - wholesale borrowing of surveillance capitalist assumptions
-
 ** Freedom of speech also means freedom to filter
 
 ** Don't pretend we can prevent what we can't
@@ -232,6 +219,63 @@ But how can we get from here to there?
 
 # 
 
+
+** Did we borrow the wrong assumptions?
+
+#+BEGIN_QUOTE
+  "What if we're making the wrong assumptions about our social networks?
+  What if we're focusing on breadth, when we really should be focusing
+  on depth?"
+    -- from a conversation with Evan Prodromou, initial designer of
+       both ActivityPub and OStatus' protcol designs
+#+END_QUOTE
+
+What is Evan trying to say here?
+Most contemporary social networks are run by surveillance capitalist
+organizations; in other words, their business model is based on as much
+"attention" as possible as they can sell to advertisers.
+Whether or not capitalism is a problem is left as an exercise for the
+reader, but hopefully most readers will agree that a business model
+based on destroying privacy can lead to undesirable outcomes.
+One such undesirable outcome is that these companies subtly affect the
+way people interact with each other not dependent on what is
+healthiest for people and their social relationships, but based on what
+will generate the most advertising revenue.
+
+One egregious example of this is the prominence of the "follower
+count" in contemporary social networks, particularly Twitter.
+When visiting another user's profile, even someone who is aware of and
+dislikes its effect will have trouble not comparing follower counts
+and mentally using this as a value judgement, either about the other
+person or about themselves.
+Users are subconsciously tricked into playing a popularity contest,
+whether they want to play that game or not.
+Rather than being encouraged to develop a network of meaningful
+relationships with which they have meaningful communications, users
+face a subconscious pressure to tailor their messaging and even who
+else they follow to maximize their follower count.
+
+So why on earth would we see follower counts also appear prominently
+on the federated social web, if these tools are generally built by
+teams that do not benefit from the same advertising structure?
+The answer is simple: it is what developers and users are both
+familiar with.
+This is not an accusation; in fact, it is a highly sympathetic
+position to take: the cost, for developers and users alike, of
+developing a system is lower by going with the familiar rather than
+researching the ideal.
+But the consequences may nonetheless be severe.
+
+So it is too with how we build our notion of security and
+authorization, which developers tend to mimic from the systems they
+have already seen.
+Why wouldn't they?
+But it may be that these patterns are, in fact, anti-patterns.
+It may be time for some re-evaluation.
+
+# - social networks: breadth vs depth?
+#   - wholesale borrowing of surveillance capitalist assumptions
+
 ** Anti-solutions
 
 (Note that things in the anti-solutions category aren't necessarily