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

201–210 of 379 posts

Re: Google bans cryptocurrency ads

#201

Post by mgkimsal »

Raphmedia wrote: post #195
purple-again wrote: post #65

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…

> Had she been male my comment would be exactly the same except it would say 'dude' in place of 'chick'. Dude is gender neutral. Chick comes from "chica", which by itself comes from the Latin "ciccum" as in pea. By calling a woman a chick, you are called her a "chick-pea". There's even some association with "chick bird", as in a bird you hunt. Modern usage associates the use of "chick" with the beauty of the individu…

"Dude is gender neutral."

When everyone you've ever known, and all media you've ever seen, for 30 years, has exclusively used "dude" for males only, is it really "gender neutral"?

Re: Google bans cryptocurrency ads

#202

Post by mercer »

Raphmedia wrote: post #195
purple-again wrote: post #65

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…

> Had she been male my comment would be exactly the same except it would say 'dude' in place of 'chick'. Dude is gender neutral. Chick comes from "chica", which by itself comes from the Latin "ciccum" as in pea. By calling a woman a chick, you are called her a "chick-pea". There's even some association with "chick bird", as in a bird you hunt. Modern usage associates the use of "chick" with the beauty of the individu…

While I'm all for avoiding 'chick' if it offends people, your comment completely sidesteps the fact that the meaning of words change. I don't think you're doing whatever cause you're fighting any good by this kind of pedantry.

Re: Google bans cryptocurrency ads

#203

Post by dmix »

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?

> I always thought the "guaranteed to go up in value" claim was silly.

So would 99.9% of people who see that ad. Everyone knows that if it sounds too good to be true, then it likely is. Especially in a paid advertisement. Modern consumers are more than well atuned to not trust every ad they hear.

If they don't see the glaring risk in cryptocurrencies, as it is constantly mentioned as being in the media nearly every time it's mentioned, or if they didn't spend a minute Googling them to see the countless headlines about it's volatility before gambling on it then I really wonder whether their money would be going to a place of value elsewhere anyway.

Otherwise plenty of people know the risk and are still willing to bet on it because it is possible to gain quite a bit from the growth. I know many people who have successfully. And many who are in it for the long term because they fully believe in the technology. And there's nothing wrong with that.

Re: Google bans cryptocurrency ads

#204

Post by iamdave »

mgkimsal wrote: post #201
Raphmedia wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Had she been male my comment would be exactly the same except it would say 'dude' in place of 'chick'. Dude is gender neutral. Chick comes from "chica", which by itself comes from the Latin "ciccum" as in pea. By calling a woman a chick, you are called her a "chick-pea". There's even some association with "chick bird", as in a bird you hunt. Modern usage associates the use of "chick" with the beauty of the individu…

"Dude is gender neutral." When everyone you've ever known, and all media you've ever seen, for 30 years, has exclusively used "dude" for males only, is it really "gender neutral"?

I promise I'm not being antagonistic just because I disagree with you (a qualifier that shouldn't even be necessary but eggshells are abundant in this thread right now), it's weird to me to hear this because I grew up in a time in a culture where dude 100% was gender neutral and it was celebrated[1] as such

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FqMODweN8lQ

Re: Google bans cryptocurrency ads

#205

Post by s73v3r_ »

malvosenior wrote: post #190
aptsurdist wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Then flag and rate limit all the people who responded, too.

That said, I don't see that asking someone to express decency and respect when commenting is ever off topic, and should never be flagged.

Re: Google bans cryptocurrency ads

#206

Post by wyager »

RightMillennial wrote: post #134
wyager wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doctors aren’t, on average, as competent or on the ball as you think. They don’t have an encyclopedic knowledge of every drug available.

A competent physician, like a competent programmer, doesn't need to have a every drug or library memorized. He needs adequate knowledge to know what to look for and where to find it.

Again, most physicians aren’t that competent. There’s an entire set of literature based around getting your doctor to think critically, because most of them have just done the professional equivalent of memorizing a bunch of flash cards. This is cheap and works for 90% of cases, but the result is that doctors don’t actually know (and don’t care to find out) about all the latest research relevant to the particular condition of one of their 1500 patients.

Re: Google bans cryptocurrency ads

#207

Post by s73v3r_ »

purple-again wrote: post #65
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.

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…

"and carries a common definition in the English space of being polite and non derogatory."

Not really. It's always been somewhat condescending.

"Had she been male my comment would be exactly the same except it would say 'dude' in place of 'chick'."

Dude, and in fact many euphemisms for men, don't carry the same connotations as the ones for women.

Re: Google bans cryptocurrency ads

#208

Post by mercer »

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…

I think for many (myself included) it's not about being unable to appreciate the nuance. It's rather that it gets extremely tiresome to read a comment that 1) seems tonally out of proportion, and 2) comes across as 'white-knighting', as in, policing others on behalf of (hypothetical) others.

While I try not to react too strongly to this behavior (and instead see the intention behind it, which I'd say is commendable), I've become rather allergic to this kind of policing. If you're not personally affected, there's no reason for 1 and not always good reason for 2. If you are personally affected, then it would still be preferable to avoid 1, but I can at least understand.

I suspect a good proportion of downvoters/flaggers feel this way, and would otherwise happily avoid the term 'chick' if it causes offense.

Re: Google bans cryptocurrency ads

#209

Post by malvosenior »

s73v3r_ wrote: post #205
malvosenior wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Then flag and rate limit all the people who responded, too. That said, I don't see that asking someone to express decency and respect when commenting is ever off topic, and should never be flagged.

The choice to get offended by something as innocuous as the OP is not something I want in my tech discussions so I flagged it. I’m sure many others feel the same way. We don’t need tone policing here.

Re: Google bans cryptocurrency ads

#210

Post by lambda »

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.

I've tend to chat with drivers when I take Lyft, and frequently mention that I'm a programmer. Several of the drivers have then asked me about cryptocurrency, mostly Bitcoin and Ethereum. I try to discuss how technically interesting they are, but how financially shaky; that there is likely a bubble and that they are probably not good long term investment options but could be worth buying a little bit for fun.

We are definitely in a very hype driven cryptocurrency bubble right now, and there are a lot of naive folks who are probably going to lose money to it.

And yet somehow, we haven't really managed to make any cryptocurrencies an actual, widely accepted, payment alternative, for anyone other than a few people with special circumstances (government restrictions on currency exchange, criminals demanding ransoms, funding organizations that governments are trying to shut down) or people who are fairly technically competent.

There's a chance the lightning network could be the last piece of the puzzle to make cryptocurrencies actually usable for payment, though even still, I have a hard time seeing most places wanting to accept payment in an asset as volatile as Bitcoin.

Or maybe we'll see a coin backed by fiat currency and real, regulated banks on Stellar, where you don't have nearly the same scalability issues nor gigawatts of power wasted just to try to solve Sybil attacks. If you have a coin backed by fiat currency, and low transaction costs, businesses are a lot more likely to accept it as payment as most of their expenses, taxes, debts, and so on are in the local fiat currency rather than than in any cryptocurrency.

Post reply on HN