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

351–360 of 379 posts

Re: Google bans cryptocurrency ads

#351

Post by [deleted] »

dpark wrote: post #173
r_singh wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 u…

[deleted]

Re: Google bans cryptocurrency ads

#352

Post by r_singh »

dpark wrote: post #173
r_singh wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 u…

There seems to be a slight misunderstanding.

What that means is that the particular Rx drug being advertised can only be advertised to consumers of that Rx drug in question. So insulin can only be advertised to people with diabetes.

The interesting thing about this is that it leaves most of the power with the HCP.

As for the delivery mechanism, there weren't too many options in the recent past, however, these days there are POC marketing companies like Outcome Health (and others) and a growing number of software applications are aware of their user's health condition / needs (with permission of course either explicitly or by virtue of the intended use, like apps for diabetes patients, etc.).

Re: Google bans cryptocurrency ads

#354

Post by flashmob »

Waterluvian wrote: post #317
dpc_pw wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> always been a community made up of shady folks That's not fair. Shady folks are just getting more publicity. Noone talks about people who created stuff that works and doesn't scam people. And there's a lot of such stuff. This space is growing because of such people, despite the shady folks.

I would love to see a list of CONCRETE examples of cryptocoins that are doing good, productive things TODAY.

There you go if you want a list of concrete examples: https://pineapplefund.org/

Re: Google bans cryptocurrency ads

#355

Post by Stranger43 »

AlexCoventry wrote: post #318
Sangermaine wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Noone talks about people who created stuff that works and doesn't scam people. And there's a lot of such stuff. No, there isn't. It's always been nebulous talk of "potential" without any concrete uses beyond scams and criminal activity. There have just been iterations of tools for those areas. Then you have the near-religious libertarian True Believers who promote as a matter of faith, regardless of what the reality…

> It's always been nebulous talk of "potential" without any concrete uses beyond scams and criminal activity. I suppose it might count as criminal activity, but as far as I know, it's the only way to donate to Sci Hub. http://sci-hub.tw/#donate

Part of why bitcoin was semi viable before it's intentional scarcity killed all of growth potential is that any society needs a gray market of things that are illegal but often essential for social mobility(like pirated textbooks and academic papers, or unmonitored cross border communication).

The problem for bitcoin arrived when people begun to see it as something that could be more then an underground activity and started treating it like an investment object and essentially reinvented the old failed concept of "wildcat currencies" with an intentional scarce currency, something made viable by the libertarian refusal to even look at the real world history of economics.

What we now have is a bitcoin economy thats hit a hard(intentional) limit of growth forcing people to branch away from bitcoin as the revolutionary application of blockchain in a world where some minor advances are made in actually using the underlying theory for something other then scams, creating a market ripe for new wildcat currencies pretenting to be be "what bitcoin failed to become".

Re: Google bans cryptocurrency ads

#356

Post by Theodores »

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?

You would think that 'great artists' would hold on to all of their paintings and not sell them, same with car manufacturers that produce 'limited editions'. Who knows whether the next 'Beatles' is out there, holding back all their recordings until 2050 so they appreciate in value.

Only if something has buyers does it have value, this is true with finance scams as well as real world over0valued items.

Re: Google bans cryptocurrency ads

#357

Post by nicky0 »

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…

You don't flag a post because you disagree with the logic of the argument.

Re: Google bans cryptocurrency ads

#358

Post by Erlich_Bachman »

lambda wrote: post #294
fancyfacebook wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone I know who got into crypto has the same story: for some silly reason they all bought like 5-10 different coins and it would be inordinately complicated and expensive to sell them all. I'm pretty sure whatever "newbie guides" exist out there purposely lead people to this awful state.

"Crypto" is short for "cryptography" (or related words like "cryptographic"). Using "crypto" to abbreviate "cryptocurrency" causes a lot of confusion, as the "crypto" in "cryptocurrency" was already an abbreviation; "cryptocurrency" is short for "cryptographic currency." People who know nothing about cryptography or even that cryptocurrency uses cryptography get confused if they are looking for information about cryp…

> "Crypto" is short for "cryptography" (or related words like "cryptographic"). You know who decided that? The population that was using these terms.

Now a similar population at large has decided the new usage rules. It's normal, it's just evolution of the English language. By this point, "crypto" is indeed widely used as a short term for Cryptocurrencies also.

People who know nothing about things are going to get confused either way. The society can't form every single rule just so every person who doesn't know anything will have a clear mind. If they want to learn something, they will. And learning that "crypto" can mean two things, in a language where it's already commonplace for terms to mean different things in different areas - is not a huge thing.

Re: Google bans cryptocurrency ads

#359

Post by mercer »

Raphmedia wrote: post #253
mercer wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd say that's another issue, namely that most words don't have one single, clear meaning, as is evident from a bunch of other comments. It's equally pedantic and cause-harming to pretend that this is not the case. I can definitely accept that in many circles 'chick' has this connotation, and, again, I'm happy to be cautious in my use of the word if I don't know for certain whether this is the case or not. That said,…

> Again, I don't see what you're trying to achieve with this kind of pedantry. If you actually care about these I do hope you find a better way to communicate about it. We are arguing under a [flagged] [dead] comment, so there's not much to achieve here. My last opinion on the subject has been said here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16587100

Fair enough.

FWIW my apologies for being a bit too antagonistic. Personal frustrations getting the best of me. I do generally avoid using 'chick' unless I know it's okay, and I do think that's a sensible approach. And in hindsight I wish I hadn't gotten into a discussion about it.

Re: Google bans cryptocurrency ads

#360

Post by gowld »

richardw wrote: post #342
Waterluvian wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would love to see a list of CONCRETE examples of cryptocoins that are doing good, productive things TODAY.

Not a list but: "UN’s World Food Programme Builds on Ethereum Blockchain Money Transfers" https://www.ccn.com/banks-begone-uns-world-food-programme-bu... "The pilot alone is said to save the agency $150,000 a month while eliminating a staggering 98% of bank-related transfer fees, according to Munich WFP innovation lab chief Bernhard Kowatsch."

I don't see how blockchain is relevant to that solution. Couldn't they do the same thing with any database-backed web app tracking account balances?
Post reply on HN