That so many smart and talented people choose to work on AdTech or systems that support AdTech is such a shame. That being said, I love these little anecdotes, they are super fun to read.
[deleted]
Google could have killed Facebook with the flick of a switch
41–50 of 145 posts
Re: Google could have killed Facebook with the flick of a switch
#42If the product was responsible for 25% of the company revenue, why was only half of one engineer assigned to it? And after the vulnerability was discovered, they still only had 5 people assigned to it while it increased in importance to 50% of revenue?
I hope those 13 engineers got paid millions. So much weight and responsibility on their shoulders! They were responsible for nearly $2 billion in 2013 (25% of $7.87bn), and nearly $14bn in 2016 when the work was finished (50% of $27.63bn)
I see this sort of comment occasionally. If those engineers hadn't been assigned to work on the project, somebody else would have. It doesn't look like they did that fantastic a job of it either. Also this was a front-end to managing the ad system, not the ad system itself, or the infrastructure it ran on, or the features of facebook that drew in the audience in the first place, etc, etc.
Yes some engineers genuinely do make contributions that have unique value, but frankly most of us are guns for hire and if we're lucky enough to get on a fun, interesting and valuable project that's great, but frankly one out of three is the best we usually get.
Re: Google could have killed Facebook with the flick of a switch
#43Earlier quoted context omitted.
It may be "many" but it does not mean that the defining nature of advertising is ethically neutral. I think I just quote Banksy/Tejaratchi: "People are taking the piss out of you everyday. They butt into your life, take a cheap shot at you and then disappear. They leer at you from tall buildings and make you feel small. They make flippant comments from buses that imply you're not sexy enough and that all the fun is h…
> I think I just quote Banksy Banksy is not the original author, Sean Tejaratchi is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_Tejaratchi#Crap_Hound https://i.imgur.com/D0pTs.jpg
Thanks, I edited my post to include credits to Tejaratchi. Not sure how this should be done properly, as that specific quote is from Banksy, so I just left credits for both.
Re: Google could have killed Facebook with the flick of a switch
#44Google actually had a successful social network project, Orkut, they just continuously marginalised it for it to be too NIH for US headquarters.
Wasn’t it very popular in Brazil for some time?
Re: Google could have killed Facebook with the flick of a switch
#45Google actually had a successful social network project, Orkut, they just continuously marginalised it for it to be too NIH for US headquarters.
Also tried to band everyone (MySpace among them) together with OpenSocial, but too late.
Re: Google could have killed Facebook with the flick of a switch
#46Earlier quoted context omitted.
I hope those 13 engineers got paid millions. So much weight and responsibility on their shoulders! They were responsible for nearly $2 billion in 2013 (25% of $7.87bn), and nearly $14bn in 2016 when the work was finished (50% of $27.63bn)
I see this sort of comment occasionally. If those engineers hadn't been assigned to work on the project, somebody else would have. It doesn't look like they did that fantastic a job of it either. Also this was a front-end to managing the ad system, not the ad system itself, or the infrastructure it ran on, or the features of facebook that drew in the audience in the first place, etc, etc. Yes some engineers genuinely…
Smacks of maybe survivorship bias. If OP hadn't noticed this chrome dependency, how are we to speculate on the likelihood of someone else noticing it? They even said nobody else wanted to work on it.
Re: Google could have killed Facebook with the flick of a switch
#47Google actually had a successful social network project, Orkut, they just continuously marginalised it for it to be too NIH for US headquarters.
I don't know how they are doing it but Google manage to fail at anything social. By that I mean communication platforms, social networks and instant messengers. They have promising starts but they fuck it up later. Their only successes I'd say are GMail and YouTube.
I'd say for GMail, it is just an email client they started out excellent, thanks in part to its huge storage space and good search features. And they didn't break it enough to make it unusable.
As for YouTube, it is great for hosting video, but its social features are terrible. There are communities tied to popular channels, but it stays in a producer to consumer model, with no interaction between community members. The comment section is made in such a way that dialogue is almost impossible.
Maybe they should hire a few people who understand human beings, because right now, it looks like the company is run by robots.
Re: Google could have killed Facebook with the flick of a switch
#48Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are so many aspects of adtech that are ethically neutral. Just as advertising itself - there are even ads created by great creators that are works of modern art. It's only when it's abused adtech becomes evil.
> so many Please name 5
OK. Let's separate the ad industry from ad technology for now. So as for the latter, have a look at the Revive ad server [0]. It allows you to deliver ads with intricate rules as to when they should be served, on which websites and so on. It allows you to be less dependent on Google/FB duopoly. You can host the ads either on your own websites or contact the owners of other popular websites and arrange an ad deal that doesn't involve user tracking. Yes, this is the opposite of what modern ad networks are doing.
In any case, advertising without user tracking is, in my opinion, one of the most ethically neutral forms of making your product/service known, in contrast to morally dubious methods such as advertising with user tracking, product placement, advertorials, advertising disguised as articles/videos etc.
Re: Google could have killed Facebook with the flick of a switch
#49Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are so many aspects of adtech that are ethically neutral. Just as advertising itself - there are even ads created by great creators that are works of modern art. It's only when it's abused adtech becomes evil.
It may be "many" but it does not mean that the defining nature of advertising is ethically neutral. I think I just quote Banksy/Tejaratchi: "People are taking the piss out of you everyday. They butt into your life, take a cheap shot at you and then disappear. They leer at you from tall buildings and make you feel small. They make flippant comments from buses that imply you're not sexy enough and that all the fun is h…
Please note that all these examples from the quote refer to a certain genre of ads targeted at the general public. Many teach ads I see are completely different. I often click on ads for microcontrollers for example, and I have't yet seen one I would find offensive in any way. They don't make me feel small and unworthy, on the opposite: the make me feel empwered. So it's really about the content of the ad, not advertising itself.
Advertising is crucial for everyone. When you have a product or service, you need to advertise it. Even if you choose not to buy ads, you need to find another way, organic or not, to make your project known. If you don't have a products/service yourself, you work for a company who has, and there are very few lucky enough not to need any advertising (because e.g. they secured long-term goverment contracts already etc.). We should focus on how to make advertising human again rather than destroying it completely.
Re: Google could have killed Facebook with the flick of a switch
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
It may be "many" but it does not mean that the defining nature of advertising is ethically neutral. I think I just quote Banksy/Tejaratchi: "People are taking the piss out of you everyday. They butt into your life, take a cheap shot at you and then disappear. They leer at you from tall buildings and make you feel small. They make flippant comments from buses that imply you're not sexy enough and that all the fun is h…
Please note that all these examples from the quote refer to a certain genre of ads targeted at the general public. Many teach ads I see are completely different. I often click on ads for microcontrollers for example, and I have't yet seen one I would find offensive in any way. They don't make me feel small and unworthy, on the opposite: the make me feel empwered. So it's really about the content of the ad, not advert…
Note that the quote originates from the 90's, way before ad tech as it is currently known. Advertising is a bit like finance. There exists an important, tiny core that is surrounded by a massive amount of activity whose societal benefit is doubtful at best.