71–80 of 212 posts
I have made this case before, but I will make it again. The Internet is the largest information system in the world, and Google is the primary portal into that information system. Google's "organic" results are accompanied by AdWords results, which are based on a mixture of bid price and relevance. These ads are marked with a small "Ad" label that many people miss, and even those who know they're ads can't really "un…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The library is a catalog of books produced by publishers for the sake of making money. Your example doesn't hold weight, as there is no "purity of information". Even your own insights are filtered through the perspective of your personal influence, your wants, your desires, your history, etc. Google is no different. The organic search results are largely from commercial, or at a minimum, self-interested sources. That…
I'm just saying I wish we could have only organic results. Why should people with more money have more of a presence online? Money shouldn't be able to buy speech. The Internet should not be a place where those with more money get to cut the line in front of those with less. Let PageRank sort it out. Also, what's this about my example not holding weight because "information purity" doesn't exist? It's not about the i…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think it's so bad, and more importantly I don't see the solution. Google does what it does to make money, and ads are how it does that. If there's a more ethical solution it'll only be implemented if it's also more profitable. All that is fine with me; Google doesn't have any obligations to me or you or anyone besides their shareholders.
"I don't see any problem with the way the world's most powerful system for freeing the mind has been co-opted by for-profit enterprise. I am ignorant of any possible alternatives. Capitalist businesses sell goods and services in exchange for money. I accept that no effort will be made to find more ethical alternatives unless it can produce even more money. We as a society have no control or influence over what indivi…
Something like this recently disturbed me. Mitt Romney published a tweet storm a few days ago making his case against Donald Trump. They all showed up in my feed - I don't follow Romney, and the tweets weren't marked as sponsored, but somehow Twitter decided I should be seeing them anyway. I'd hate to think Twitter decided it was for the public good that everyone read what Romney had to say about Trump.
I have made this case before, but I will make it again. The Internet is the largest information system in the world, and Google is the primary portal into that information system. Google's "organic" results are accompanied by AdWords results, which are based on a mixture of bid price and relevance. These ads are marked with a small "Ad" label that many people miss, and even those who know they're ads can't really "un…
Personally I've found Google to be frustratingly difficult to search in recent years. I can't find articles & essays that I remember fondly because the namespace is so polluted with Great SEO.
Of course, one can always suggest that I am just better attuned to Google (I have Google Fu from long experience with Google and wrongfully expect DuckDuckGo Fu to be the same skill and have not developed DuckDuckGo Fu).
Something like this recently disturbed me. Mitt Romney published a tweet storm a few days ago making his case against Donald Trump. They all showed up in my feed - I don't follow Romney, and the tweets weren't marked as sponsored, but somehow Twitter decided I should be seeing them anyway. I'd hate to think Twitter decided it was for the public good that everyone read what Romney had to say about Trump.
Unfortunately that train has already left the station, and to thunderous applause from the media. Twitter already carefully curates hashtags; it's not hard to imagine they'd take the liberty of promoting a series of tweets that they feel are important.
Oh, wait, you're spreading your subtle forms of influence.
I have made this case before, but I will make it again. The Internet is the largest information system in the world, and Google is the primary portal into that information system. Google's "organic" results are accompanied by AdWords results, which are based on a mixture of bid price and relevance. These ads are marked with a small "Ad" label that many people miss, and even those who know they're ads can't really "un…
Luckily, the world does not have to conform to your standards. What you are arguing for is authoritarianism, that your opinion be forced upon actors. This kind of thinking is exactly what erodes the basis for innovation and liberty. Google is the top search engine because their results are just unmatched in quality. If you don't like the results of google, then visit another search engine - or better, create a better one that conforms to your puritan principles. But please don't tell others what to do, and for goodness' sake, please don't involve the state and more legislation in this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm just saying I wish we could have only organic results. Why should people with more money have more of a presence online? Money shouldn't be able to buy speech. The Internet should not be a place where those with more money get to cut the line in front of those with less. Let PageRank sort it out. Also, what's this about my example not holding weight because "information purity" doesn't exist? It's not about the i…
Money always buys speech; whether it is by allowing a columnist to write full time, affording the puchase of a computer to post on the internet, or giving someone the ability to travel to a public square. Using money to purchase a magazine, newspaper, television, radio, or online advertisement is just another way that money helps people express their views. In any case, I wouldn't be too worried about money changing…
Something like this recently disturbed me. Mitt Romney published a tweet storm a few days ago making his case against Donald Trump. They all showed up in my feed - I don't follow Romney, and the tweets weren't marked as sponsored, but somehow Twitter decided I should be seeing them anyway. I'd hate to think Twitter decided it was for the public good that everyone read what Romney had to say about Trump.
How do you think the media mughals made their billions. They made them doing exactly this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Money always buys speech; whether it is by allowing a columnist to write full time, affording the puchase of a computer to post on the internet, or giving someone the ability to travel to a public square. Using money to purchase a magazine, newspaper, television, radio, or online advertisement is just another way that money helps people express their views. In any case, I wouldn't be too worried about money changing…
Try to sell a bad product? It's done all the time. Heck, a tube of wax called "HeadOn" managed to sell pretty well with an ad campaign that stopped just short of claiming it helped headaches.
My position is that advertising a bad product is a very bad bet; the fact that someone has won the lottery does not mean that anyone should play it.