Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google bans cryptocurrency ads

support.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 379 posts

Re: Google bans cryptocurrency ads

#141

Post by jessaustin »

rorykoehler wrote: post #115
kurthr wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The first percussion cap for a cartridge wasn't patented until 1807, not in common use until 1825-30 when the bolt action arrived, and not popularized until the Colt revolver in 1835. Rapid firing guns of more than ~6 shots didn't arrive in the US until the civil war.

Interesting I would have thought it was much earlier. I had to look it up on wikipedia: >The first device identified as a gun, a bamboo tube that used gunpowder to fire a spear, appeared in China around AD 1000. The Chinese had previously invented gunpowder in the 9th century. & >English Privy Wardrobe accounts list "ribaldis", a type of cannon, in the 1340s, and siege guns were used by the English at Calais in 1346.…

Presumably children wouldn't write college essays about their experiences protesting the bamboo tube with a spear sticking out of it?

Re: Google bans cryptocurrency ads

#142

Post by saosebastiao »

gnode wrote: post #26
hobofan wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure you do. You buy higher-end business shoes and suits to be eligible for management positions that pay better. Might not be the case in SV and the startup world, but it certainly is at most other companies.

That's not what capital gain means; you're not expecting to sell the shoes themselves to make a profit.

Correct, it's not a capital gain. It's a dividend.

Re: Google bans cryptocurrency ads

#143

Post by pjc50 »

John_KZ wrote: post #25
yani wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are a service provider and can decide what to allow and disallow on their platform.

Not really. They can't decide to disallow bussiness run by black people or Slovenians. There's a law against that. For a large monopolies like that, it might be wise to expand anti-discrimination laws to include more things. At least that's my opinion. What if Google decides to disallow all mentions and all possible advertisements of a certain political party? What if it deletes all your emails without warning, becau…

> What if Google decides to disallow all mentions and all possible advertisements of a certain political party?

For a very broad definition of "party", it is already required to do this in many places for proscribed organisations, terrorist groups, and the Nazi Party. The sky has not fallen in.

> What if it deletes all your emails without warning, because it deemed you as an uprofitable customer?

They have a history of sudden, unaccountable, irretrievable account closures for a small number of legitimate users - every now and again one is mentioned on HN.

Re: Google bans cryptocurrency ads

#144

Post by SlowRobotAhead »

JFFalcon wrote: post #94
DanBC wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

HN has an international audience, and cultural norms are different in different regions. Very roughly in English workplaces you should avoid calling any of the women "chick" because you'll cause grave offence. There are very narrow exceptions to this. In places like Stoke on Trent you might find people calling each other "my duck" (but this isn't just women; men call each other "me duck" too.) But even there you need…

Agreed. I'm amazed the comment got such a negative reaction. I can't think of anyone I know who would be happy about being called a chick, however casually.

I guess I wish I had so few problems and concerns of my own that I had time to be offended for people i don’t know. Especially on something so innocent and common.

Seems like a luxury.

Re: Google bans cryptocurrency ads

#146

Post by bunderbunder »

purple-again wrote: post #103
JFFalcon wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. I'm amazed the comment got such a negative reaction. I can't think of anyone I know who would be happy about being called a chick, however casually.

https://hackerchick.com/ http://chickswhocode.com/ http://chickscancode.com/ I spent 5 seconds googling.

There can be some subtlety there, though.

Where I come from (central US), "chick" is similar to "dork" in that it can, but doesn't necessarily, have derogatory connotations. It depends a lot on context. It's perfectly acceptable (though slightly cheeky) to call oneself a dork in public, but you typically wouldn't call someone else a dork unless you were already on very familiar terms with that person. And you would only do it in familiar circumstances. Doing it with someone you don't know very well, or doing it in public, would be considered offensive. Doubly so if you don't know them and it's in public.

Chick operates the same way, only it's got even more cultural baggage because it features in a lot of memes that are associated with sexism (e.g., the phrase "cruising for chicks").

So I wouldn't even dream of presuming that it's OK for me to call someone else a chick in public, even if I knew them to be a founding member of Chicks who Code.

I realize that the original poster was probably just trying to be cute. But, as John Scalzi famously observed, "The failure mode of 'clever' is 'asshole'."

Re: Google bans cryptocurrency ads

#147

Post by charlesdm »

_aeneas wrote: post #3

I believe this to be a good decision. Investment should not be driven by advertisement but by facts. In my experience, any investment advertisement tying to appeal to mass audiences is fraud. This is no different for cryptocurrencies and reminds me of the penny stock scams.

In case you didn't know, most investment decisions are made by advertising or access.

If you step into a large bank, they'll tend to get a cut on each fund they sell you -- whether that is a good fund or a bad. Often these funds are also run by the bank, and they charge excessive fees for managing.

Re: Google bans cryptocurrency ads

#148

Post by username223 »

robotbikes wrote: post #14

I was listening to terrestrial radio the other day and was surprised to hear a radio advertisement beckoning retirees to cash in their 401ks to join the cryptocurrency future of Bitcoin and Ethereum. The bubble is too big for Google to slow it down and it has grown beyond the realm of tech savvy geeks into something fueled by hype and hubris.

FM radio ads trying to scam retirees? Wow, it's hard to go lower than that, but people have managed. John Oliver's recent segment on crypto was mostly intro-level, but he managed to dig up a video ad for a pump-and-dump ring. It wasn't at all wink-and-nudge or euphemistic: they pretty much flat out said "join our group to pump and dump cryptocurrencies and shaft some rubes."

I'll be surprised if the whole space doesn't completely crater sometime this year, a bunch of ordinary people get shafted, and the SEC steps in and knocks some heads. There's no way I'm getting near this until after the dust settles.

Re: Google bans cryptocurrency ads

#149

Post by gaius »

purple-again wrote: post #103
JFFalcon wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. I'm amazed the comment got such a negative reaction. I can't think of anyone I know who would be happy about being called a chick, however casually.

https://hackerchick.com/ http://chickswhocode.com/ http://chickscancode.com/ I spent 5 seconds googling.

There used to be unixchix.com too, but I think it’s defunct

Re: Google bans cryptocurrency ads

#150

Post by logfromblammo »

moate wrote: post #111
briandear wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Going to disagree with you. Doctors often have incentives to prescribe certain drugs over others that aren’t necessarily the best drug. If it’s legal to advertise to physicians then it should be legal to advertise to consumers. Ultimately the consumer is in charge of their own health and should have a say in their drug choices. Let’s think of another industry — tires. Is a consumer typically an automotive engineer or…

Flagged for an egregious false equivalency. To pretend that the basic understanding of a tire and it's function and a understanding of the mechanisms of most prescription drugs is a stretch that will tear the fabric of credibility. "This is a good tire, it will last longer than most and will serve you well. It is highly unlikely to interfere with any other parts of your car" VS. "This is a enzyme inhibitor that will…

Or even something like

"We don't even know about all the things this molecule could do inside your body, but one of the things we do know about turns out to be pretty useful, and so we have made an arrangement with the physicians cartel. You have to pay one of them to monitor your individual situation to make it less likely you die or suffer some horribly grievous injury. In exchange, they will absorb some of our product liability for the most frequent and least severe side effects. This is usually a win-win-win, but sometimes it's just win-win for us and the physicians and a loss for you."

When you want to pump people full of newly developed and recently tested chemicals, you do need someone capable of reading and understanding the publications of medical studies, and keeping track of all the recommendations published by the professional association. Auto mechanics do have a similar, less extensive sort of training in that they need to do the same kind of thing with service bulletins, but tire maintenance is one of those things that anyone with the right tool can do, like changing oil and filters or replacing brake pads.

Knowing what cryptocurrency is right for you is even simpler than that. None of them are. Even the very first cryptocurrency, Bitcoin, is still essentially in beta release, and not suitable for consumption by the general public. Anyone who can't or won't admit that the technology is not yet ready for wide-scale adoption is selling you vapor, and will probably run off with your money, leaving you with a bag of wooden nickels. That's why the ads are coming down. Every last one of them is a fraud, like the snake-oil panaceas of unregulated frontier pharmacologists that were pretty much just booze and opioids.

Post reply on HN