Live data from Hacker News

Why I'd never work for Google, Twitter, or Facebook

naildrivin5.com

21–30 of 173 posts

Re: Why I'd never work for Google, Twitter, or Facebook

#21
Let's look at tools and apps that typically do not have ads: public data tools on government websites. Even at the federal level, there is nothing that comes close to the usability of what Google and FB provide. For example, the most advanced delivery system used by the U.S. to inform their customers, the public, of Treasury expenditures is monthly excel spreadsheets.

Try using a local crime mapping tool, like California's Megan's Law offender database.

because there are no systematic metrics to tell how much and in what fashion these data apps are being used, the government has no ability to tell if their apps are actually effective. Furthermore, there's no near-term incentive to improve these tools because no profit margin depends on these apps actually being used.

The author here should be commended for his idealism, but that doesn't warrant the viewpoint that money-making mechanisms serve no beneficial purpose besides a company's bottom line.

Re: Why I'd never work for Google, Twitter, or Facebook

#22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You wouldn't have to pay the BBC license with your setup if you detuned your TV from the usual channels and used it in the way you're describing.

You only have to pay the license if you're watching live TV. If you don't own a TV or if your TV isn't tuned to terrestrial channels, you don't have to pay. Even if you're not paying, you still get access to loads of great radio stations and a fantastic website AND on-demand catchup of all BBC programmes on iPlayer. The license is only for live TV.

Re: Why I'd never work for Google, Twitter, or Facebook

#23
In the case of Google ... that purpose is to serve ads.

It's like saying that human's purpose is to consume food.

Food is our way to get energy we need to do something - anything, actually. We would die without food, but are we limited to that? (Okay, some people actually are, but these are few).

Google did A LOT - probably more than any other company - to organize and structure data, make it more accessible - THAT is their purpose (and I believe Brin or Page actually told that).

Re: Why I'd never work for Google, Twitter, or Facebook

#24

I've never understood the absolute hostility some people have for a small div of advertising that you can easily ignore.

It sounds like he's railing against the motivations of the business as a whole that allow Google, Twitter, and Facebook to live at the scale that they do.

As for why someone would have hostility, I can relate with him. I think it's a general opposition to consumerism needing to be in your face everywhere and the deceptive nature of it (tracking users across the web for example). Just feels "dirty."

Re: Why I'd never work for Google, Twitter, or Facebook

#25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

IIRC, you only have to pay for a TV license if you watch BBC stuff as it's being broadcast.

You have the option of saying you don't need a license, in which case they send someone around to make sure you aren't lying. This is how it is currently at my place (althought they never got around to sending their van over..)

Re: Why I'd never work for Google, Twitter, or Facebook

#26

I've never understood the absolute hostility some people have for a small div of advertising that you can easily ignore.

It sounds like he's railing against the motivations of the business as a whole that allow Google, Twitter, and Facebook to live at the scale that they do. As for why someone would have hostility, I can relate with him. I think it's a general opposition to consumerism needing to be in your face everywhere and the deceptive nature of it (tracking users across the web for example). Just feels "dirty."

[deleted]

Re: Why I'd never work for Google, Twitter, or Facebook

#27
post #8

I happen to work for Facebook, and a large fraction of my friends and family are expatriates. A place to easily keep in touch, share photos of kids, chat with abuelita, all that boring stuff, directly improves our quality of life. When I recommend Linux for my friends, the top two "programs" they care about are Skype and Facebook. After that, maybe Youtube. As for the ads, yes, that's a source of revenue. If that is…

I was going to comment that Google, Facebook and Twitter are platforms for search, connections and communicating respectively. Ads are simply a revenue model. If Facebook charged $20 per month, would you work for them then?

However, after seeing comments like: I work for facebook - "advertising is itself a worthwhile problem."

and... I work for google - "People in non-advertising teams hardly ever ask 'how will this effect click-through rates?'."

Hardly ever? :-) Maybe it is more about advertising then I realize.

Re: Why I'd never work for Google, Twitter, or Facebook

#29
post #14

If 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.

Many farmers, scientists, teachers, and construction workers lead meaningful careers.

But think about McDonalds. The food is grown by "farmers", the buildings were built by construction workers, the people who work there were taught by teachers, and the food was created by scientists.

Some, but not all, of those people are doing meaningful work.

Now consider the banker that renegotiates mortgages with long time customers to help them stay solvent, the politicians who stand up for constituents, the salespeople who help people find a car that will really serve them well, the lawyer that takes a pay cut to defend the accused...

Meaning is not found in what you do, but how you do it.

Re: Why I'd never work for Google, Twitter, or Facebook

#30

I've never understood the absolute hostility some people have for a small div of advertising that you can easily ignore.

Small div?

1. Google owns Doubleclick (display advertising != small div).

2. Google owns Adsense (!= small div)

3. Even their SERPs don't have "small divs" anymore. A lot of the area "above the fold" is ads (sorry, "sponsored results").

I use Chrome occasionally and either Adthwart got disabled during an update or I didn't install it. Anyway, I'm astounded at the garbage that Google puts on their SERPs and puts on other sites via adsense/doubleclick.

YMMV.

Post reply on HN