Live data from Hacker News

Google bans cryptocurrency ads

support.google.com

171–180 of 379 posts

Re: Google bans cryptocurrency ads

#171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I apologize if the word offends you. It was both intentioned to be non offensive (which should be apparent from my admiration for her WORK while giving no fucks about her as a person) and carries a common definition in the English space of being polite and non derogatory. Had she been male my comment would be exactly the same except it would say 'dude' in place of 'chick'. Now does anyone know where I can find that w…

Do you normally apologize for people feeling offended about what you said instead of just apologizing?

Are you genuinely curious or just piling on?

Re: Google bans cryptocurrency ads

#172
post #85

Disgraceful that Google would do this on the day of Hawkins' tragic passing. Big Steve was a true believer and my contacts told me he was preparing his own ICO for late 2018, I'm glad he's not able to see this. Why hasn't Elon Musk made a new Google yet? A search engine that would benefit humanity and encourage free expression of ideas instead of hiding knowledge away.

I assume this one was sarcasm? It's sometimes really hard to say in this topic. Just checking some of the other comments show some quite out-there opinions made apparently with full seriousness.

Re: Google bans cryptocurrency ads

#173
post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the difference here? Aren't prescription drug consumers the general public?

Prescription drug consumers are a subset of the general public. But all of general public aren't prescription drug consumers.

That's essentially untrue in developed nations. Everyone has gotten a prescription at some point.

Unless you mean to say that drug companies can advertise to prescription drug users for the specific window when they happen to be actively taking a prescription drug. Which seems rather difficult to manage and would require a massive privacy violation to achieve. Plus I'm not clear what the delivery mechanism would be unless you're just talking about inserts delivered with the drugs themselves.

Re: Google bans cryptocurrency ads

#174

Since Facebook banned them I've seen a surge in them on Twitter. Will be interesting to see what they do, and whether it contributes anything meaningful to their profit situation. I'm actually glad Google are (at least for the time being). Whilst rogue ICOs and crypto-pumpers are still working their stuff, the market is much more akin to back-street gambling and since there are already regs on AdWords for unsavoury a…

I see lots of ICO ads on Instagram, which uses Facebook's ad network. Probably they banned them only on Facebook, not in their ad network completely, or just lots of ads left unbanned.

Also lots of russian money scam ads posted from temporary accounts, this may be explanation why ICOs aren't banned too: they ban, but new ads are posted again and again.

Re: Google bans cryptocurrency ads

#175
post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> this chick I can't, just can't, not in 2018, leave "this chick" without a remark: it sounds rather derogatory. Please be more respectful.

I apologize if the word offends you. It was both intentioned to be non offensive (which should be apparent from my admiration for her WORK while giving no fucks about her as a person) and carries a common definition in the English space of being polite and non derogatory. Had she been male my comment would be exactly the same except it would say 'dude' in place of 'chick'. Now does anyone know where I can find that w…

Now, "Dude" - that's a name no one would self-apply where I come from.

Re: Google bans cryptocurrency ads

#176
post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The answer to your first question is certainly "yes". Unfortunately the answer to the second is "no". No pharma executive ever got a bonus for saving lives.

That doesn't make sense to me. If life-saving drugs don't make money and pharmas are purely rational actors trying to maximize profit why would they bother investing money into them anyway? Also "life-saving" is a high bar, I was merely talking about "useful". If you figure out a great remedy for baldness you might not save lives but you wont have any issue making billions selling it, advertising or not. If you only…

Opioids don't need marketing. Opioid aficionados will seek them out at great expense and difficulty. In a sense, that's good, because the question of appropriate pain management is complicated enough even without considering marketing. Physicians who didn't know that opioids were addictive before prescribing them weren't victims of irresponsible marketing; they were poor physicians. That isn't to say that pain shouldn't be treated, rather it is to say that treating pain is difficult and we've done a poor job so far. Part of that is vilification of opioid users, part of it is abdicating all decisions to physicians. When I was 13yo I was capable of saying "no I don't need another shot of Demerol" while barely conscious in a hospital bed. Just the same, as long as I live, I will never forget the first two shots I did receive. They were that great. But that isn't pharma; we've used opioids for centuries.

When economic historians of the future consider the current era's pharma industry, they will marvel at how much money was spent for how little benefit. The cure to cancer will not come from pharma. (Quite possibly from biotech, but that's a different thing.) The incentives are wrong: cures are less valuable than indefinite treatments. Look how much they have to charge for the hep C cure. If that were a mere treatment, they could amortize their "research costs" over a lifetime. Even better than treatments that work are treatments that might work. One poor suffering patient might be prescribed 15 such, multiple times a day for the rest of her life.

Still, for many hep C sufferers even an expensive cure is a good thing. Many other conditions respond in agreeable ways to some medicines for some patients some of the time. Maybe the research costs too much for some of them. One suspects that a more rational FDA process could cut costs for most drugs, but no one who would benefit from that has any control over the process itself. The whole edifice is a bit monstrous. Just the same, if the golden goose requires drug marketing, do we really want to do away with drug marketing?

Re: Google bans cryptocurrency ads

#177
post #31

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.

From the best tweetstorm ever on topic by Sarah Jeong: https://twitter.com/sarahjeong/status/953464303960469504 > All of this has gone too far!!!!! It was fine when you paranoid dorks were out there scamming each other, please leave the normies alone!!!!!!!!!!!

> Get out of my mentions unless you read the white paper at least five years ago or earlier

Love it, thanks for sharing.

It does seem like she is making the mistake of conflating Bitcoin with general crypto however, which can be misleading to her audience.

Bitcoin indeed suffers from slow transaction speeds and extreme volatility.

Other coins, truer to the original vision, fair much better in those respects, and with wide adoption and usage, the volatility would subside.

Re: Google bans cryptocurrency ads

#178
post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it not the female equivalent of "this dude"? edit: seems that's how the author intended it

Unless used in an obviously derogatory context, all modern usage of "chick" that I've heard (American English) has basically been equivalent to "dude" for men. Most people I hang out with (men and women) toss around "chick" and "dude" equally as a friendly and casual way to refer to an unnamed individual.

Yes, but the social context of men and women in professional environments is different. Causal terms like this carry a lot more baggage for women, who have had to fight for decades to be taken seriously in the workplace. "Chick" is more likely to remind somebody of all the times they have been talked down to than "dude" is.

Obviously not everybody responds this way but we should be aware of the context.

Re: Google bans cryptocurrency ads

#179

Google also shut down my google cloud Compute Engine server without notice, as I tried to run a mining pool. "Mining" is against their TOS (wasn't mining). Wonderful future. Moving to Amazon works fine for now...

Was it a free account, I'm betting it was a free account because:

> Customer may not use the Services to engage in mining cryptocurrency;

Re: Google bans cryptocurrency ads

#180
post #139
post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The vast majority of cryptocurrency advertising is aimed directly at taking advantage of investors who probably don't know how to do proper diligence on such an early and untested technology. I would put this squarely in the same vein as ads that might encourage you to 'buy our gemstone, it's going to be the new diamond'. Or 'our baseball cards are first edition and guaranteed to go up in value', etc.

I always thought the "guaranteed to go up in value" claim was silly. If it's guaranteed to go up in value, why would they want to sell it to me?

Money today is worth more than money tomorrow. If you have idle capital and I have something valuable, I can cash in sooner and you can get a valuable resource. So there is a legitimate reason for me to sell you something that is guaranteed to go up in value assuming that I want money now more than you do.

That's not an endorsement of any asset in the crypto space, and I would never remotely suggest that any token today is guaranteed to go up in value.

Post reply on HN