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

181–190 of 379 posts

Re: Google bans cryptocurrency ads

#181

Post by amyjess »

zitterbewegung wrote: post #83
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.

Google doesn't want to slow it down. They just don't want to be associated with companies that are related to fraud. And, I think that this is a valid and correct choice for Google because they have their own brand to protect.

> They just don't want to be associated with companies that are related to fraud.

More specifically, Google doesn't want the SEC to hold them liable when they go after some of these fraudsters.

Re: Google bans cryptocurrency ads

#182

Post by saq7 »

jessaustin wrote: post #96
rastaaaaaa wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not in the USA apparently.

USA drug purchases fund most global drug research. That money comes from somewhere. It's fine for us to question whether this is the best way for drugs to be marketed in our nation, but for the rest of the world to do so seems a bit ungrateful?

Oh the noble Americans! Suffering under the yolk of oppressive pharma so the rest of the world can take advantage! Praise be.

Really, though, it's absurd to demand that the rest of world be grateful. Try changing the system in the US and you will find it exceedingly difficult due to the deep pockets of big pharma and the massive role money plays in the US democratic system. So no, the rest of the world should not be grateful that a capitalist system is doing what it does.

Re: Google bans cryptocurrency ads

#183

Post by iamdave »

WorldMaker wrote: post #128
astura wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's some who self identify with it, Skepchick and The Dixie Chicks come to mind, but it can be considered somewhat derogatory, dismissive, or at least belittling in some contexts to some people. I think context and age matters a lot here (as well as personal preference) - young women and (especially) girls may use the term amongst themselves but middle age women almost certainly wouldn't, if you called your boss…

Yeah, I think the issue is a casual/familiarity vs. professional/formal situation distinction more than a politically correct one. Dude/chick make sense in casual situations where one has some familiarity relationship with the other person. They aren't often terms one would use in a formal or professional relationship. I suppose the interesting question to ask is does HN think of itself as more of a professional/form…

I suppose the interesting question to ask is does HN think of itself as more of a professional/formal discussion community than one that leans towards casual/familiar?

I don't speak for everyone, I'm merely speaking in observation: the former is the status quo, the latter I have seen completely derail threads (we're in one one of those box cars right now) and in my own opinion, which is mine and no one else's, not out of maliciousness (or at least, rarely so), but because of the clash when subscribers of the first group run into subscribers of the second group...

and neither one wants to give the other an inch.

Re: Google bans cryptocurrency ads

#184

Post by mulmen »

clu3l355 wrote: post #67
chx wrote: 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.

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

I actually call my male and female friends "dude". I've never addressed someone to their face as "chick".

Re: Google bans cryptocurrency ads

#185

Post by iamdave »

chx wrote: post #167
SlowRobotAhead wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I will presume you are a white male just because of the place we are in and your tone. I was hesitating before writing that comment but the problem is, if nothing else but #metoo should've taught you: we -- and by "we" I mean us privileged in color and gender -- need to talk up because those who are offended do not always dare to do so.

I will presume you are a white male just because of the place we are in and your tone.

I'm a black male, I happen to be somewhat in agreement with the commenter you're replying to here-because I happen to have felt that very sensation he describes in conversations very much like this one; that of people being offended on my behalf.

Why are you weaponizing race like this?

Re: Google bans cryptocurrency ads

#186

Post by SlowRobotAhead »

chx wrote: post #167
SlowRobotAhead wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I will presume you are a white male just because of the place we are in and your tone. I was hesitating before writing that comment but the problem is, if nothing else but #metoo should've taught you: we -- and by "we" I mean us privileged in color and gender -- need to talk up because those who are offended do not always dare to do so.

> I will presume you are a white male just because of the place we are in and your tone.

Ah, the only people it's ENCOURAGED to be prejudiced against while preaching tolerance. How novel!

You have no idea what I identify as, your comments just now in assuming my identify and race are far more offensive than calling out a completely positive mention of some chick, right? I'm offended now you need to change your mind. Those are the rules as I understand them. Oh but wait, you're literally saying you are of the "privileged class" so you can do as you please... ?

I like it, the full hypocritical double-down with a side of twitter "activism" where people shut their mouth not because of fear but because it directly benefited their careers and waiting to call it out did so as well.

Yes, I agree that you need to be concerned with other people's issues, like non-gun owners should understand an attack of civil rights at the plea of emotions is not in their best interest either. However... if your bar is set to "someone said the word chick!" well, congrats on solving all serious problems already.

Re: Google bans cryptocurrency ads

#187

Post by nkrisc »

UncleMeat wrote: post #178
nkrisc wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sure, in a professional environment both are inappropriate, perhaps "chick" even more so given the historic inequality in the workplace between sexes.

That said, I'm curious what is at all "professional" about the greater context that spawned this particular discussion in the first place.

Re: Google bans cryptocurrency ads

#189

Post by bduerst »

nkrisc wrote: post #139
Taek wrote: 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?

Even if the claim were true, then you could still make more money using someone else's capital.

It's the basis of the financial industry: You can make X using your own money, but you can make X+n using other people's money too.

Re: Google bans cryptocurrency ads

#190

Post by malvosenior »

aptsurdist wrote: post #162
purple-again wrote: post #49

Wow thanks for that, this chick seems awesome. Maybe my reading comprehension is shit but I never saw where she linked to her 'centralized feelings on bitcoin' or whatever. Did anyone see where that is? I've been sitting here in my little traditional finance world shaking my head at Bitcoin for years and would love to see her much more elegantly written tear down.

There was another thread commenting on the usage of the term "chick" and how it can be interpreted as derogatory. I agree that this term can be derogatory because it can be condescending. The commenter who took offense was flagged, and nested replies derided the commenter for taking offense. I am really disappointed to see the hacker news community unable to appreciate the nuance of this discussion. I know this term…

> Let's not flag and ban this discussion when it arises.

It has nothing to do with Google banning crypto ads so should be flagged as it distracts from the actual topic we’re trying to discuss.

Post reply on HN