I've never understood the absolute hostility some people have for a small div of advertising that you can easily ignore.
Why I'd never work for Google, Twitter, or Facebook
11–20 of 173 posts
Re: Why I'd never work for Google, Twitter, or Facebook
#12Applications like those provided by Google, Twitter and Facebook only achieve their popularity based on their widespread use, thus the need to keep them free and supported by advertising. Just like television, radio, the heavily-subsidized news industry and many, many more programs that rely on sponsorships in lieu of publicly-funded grants. These programs create jobs and in many cases promote education and health aw…
that tv license they have in the UK is whack From over here in the United States, it looks like it's not such a terrible thing. The BBC manages to produce great programming and content, and the license is much less than what the typical US consumer pays for cable.
They also have to pay the license, which imo amounts to nothing more than a poll tax for mindless entertainment, every year. I've never paid one and I currently do not own a TV; I was just taking a swipe at what I view as an indirect tax that further imposes the will of a few in government over the people.
But the fact remains that whomever takes a stand one way or another on advertising is just deluding themselves. It's always been with us, it's how we communicate with each other.
Re: Why I'd never work for Google, Twitter, or Facebook
#13Applications like those provided by Google, Twitter and Facebook only achieve their popularity based on their widespread use, thus the need to keep them free and supported by advertising. Just like television, radio, the heavily-subsidized news industry and many, many more programs that rely on sponsorships in lieu of publicly-funded grants. These programs create jobs and in many cases promote education and health aw…
that tv license they have in the UK is whack From over here in the United States, it looks like it's not such a terrible thing. The BBC manages to produce great programming and content, and the license is much less than what the typical US consumer pays for cable.
If I actually had a cable subscription, I would totally agree with you, too. I have a TV hooked up to my computer that I use for Netflix/Hulu/Amazon Prime Instant rather than deal with Comcast. Unfortunately, if I were setup like this in the UK I'd still have to pay the BBC licence.
Actually, I say "unfortunately", but I would actually be okay with it. The Beeb has some amazing content. But there are definitely more than a couple people with TVs who have no interest in cable (or BBC) subscriptions.
Re: Why I'd never work for Google, Twitter, or Facebook
#14If you happen to take a wider view, almost our entire society is frivolous. Banks, politicians, salesmen, lawyers... very few people actually do anything that improves peoples lives in meaningful ways. Farmers, scientists, teachers, and construction workers are maybe the exception.
Re: Why I'd never work for Google, Twitter, or Facebook
#15those grapes probably suck anyway.
Re: Why I'd never work for Google, Twitter, or Facebook
#16Or, they allow their programmers considerable free reign in order to continue to attract bright programmers.
Re: Why I'd never work for Google, Twitter, or Facebook
#17I work at Google. This isn't true.
Yes, ads fund everything else. But they don't dominate. People in non-advertising teams hardly ever ask "how will this effect click-through rates?".
Re: Why I'd never work for Google, Twitter, or Facebook
#18Applications like those provided by Google, Twitter and Facebook only achieve their popularity based on their widespread use, thus the need to keep them free and supported by advertising. Just like television, radio, the heavily-subsidized news industry and many, many more programs that rely on sponsorships in lieu of publicly-funded grants. These programs create jobs and in many cases promote education and health aw…
that tv license they have in the UK is whack From over here in the United States, it looks like it's not such a terrible thing. The BBC manages to produce great programming and content, and the license is much less than what the typical US consumer pays for cable.
The issue is choice. The same people who'd scream if Murdoch had the power to force everyone to subscribe to the Wall Street Journal don't think it's a big deal that everyone is forced to subscribe to the BBC.
Re: Why I'd never work for Google, Twitter, or Facebook
#19Also why he'll never be a journalist, magazine columnist, or work on a TV show. Advertising is just a "bug" in the system that a lot of companies are exploiting: it turns out you can make a lot of money by doing nearly nothing. Eventually the advertising revenue will dry up because people will become immune to it (or just smarter), and everyone will figure out some new way to monetize their services, perhaps by charg…
Advertising works. It works amazingly well. And I guarantee that you are successfully advertised to all the time. Advertising doesn't just occur within little pre-defined boxes on the internet. Hell, even here on HN, advertising happens all the time.
Every "Show HN" post is targeted advertising. Every blog post about some interesting set of figures a start up discovered is advertising. Those interviews start ups do? Advertising. Hell, even job posts are advertisements.
Re: Why I'd never work for Google, Twitter, or Facebook
#20Isn't it possible for a company to have more than one purpose? The people who run these companies aren't necessarily just greedy corporate bastards. Many of them want to change the world in positive ways. Ads are the funding mechanism. The article's viewpoint is one-dimensional IMO.