Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

naildrivin5.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 173 posts

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

#71

Post by scubaguy »

cletus wrote: post #40

It's strange to have some moral objection to advertising because advertising is, ultimately, a form of discovery, a way of connecting people who want or need something with those that supply it. Ad revenue on the Internet, almost by definition, means someone found something they wanted. How exactly is it bad to connect people with things they want and need? The problem with advertising is when it gets too obtrusive,…

It's one thing to not like advertising in general; I think we all prefer to avoid them. A lot of times, ads are crap. Its another thing to entirely dismiss adverting and the people that are involved in advertisement. It's just down right shitty to be condescending about it.

My counter point (http://blog.fisharefriends.us/2011/08/never-work-for-google-...) is that good ads are beneficial to businesses and consumers. Businesses need to make money to invest in future products, and advertising is a necessity to making money.

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

#73

Post by scubaguy »

aristus wrote: 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…

Does Facebook have standards on what kind of ads are served? Does Facebook try to connect people with ads that are relevant? Somehow even if you are trying to _do the right thing_, the author still can't fathom why you'd sink so low as to work for Facebook.

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

#74

Post by phpnode »

shrikant wrote: post #25
masterzora wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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..)

The "detector vans" are FUD, what they actually do is just assume that everyone has a TV and send them a letter. The TV licencing company (and it is a company, not a government organisation) is quite misleading in the way it practices, their inspectors cannot for example enter your property unless you let them in. And they can't force you to answer any questions. So there's no way for them to prove you're watching TV without a licence. All that said, personally I think the TV licence is awesome value for money, BBC TV and Radio programmes are generally of very high quality, and of course there are no adverts and there are very strict guidelines on impartiality etc

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

#75

Post by yaakov34 »

I don't get the objection. A company providing an online service has to be paid somehow. It's either going to be paid by subscriptions, or by advertisers. The people have spoken: the ad-supported model is nearly universal, the paywall model is rare and unpopular.

I don't see how Google and Twitter are guilty for giving people what they want. I am sure Google and Facebook would have gladly avoided the whole advertising rigmarole if they had been able to charge for their services; but the fact is, Facebook would have about 150 users now if they did that. I personally may or may not like this situation, but this is how it works.

Speaking of moral imperatives, I will say one thing for the ad-supported model: it opens up the internet to developing world markets in which people would not be able to use paid services.

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

#76

Post by mbateman »

cletus wrote: post #40

It's strange to have some moral objection to advertising because advertising is, ultimately, a form of discovery, a way of connecting people who want or need something with those that supply it. Ad revenue on the Internet, almost by definition, means someone found something they wanted. How exactly is it bad to connect people with things they want and need? The problem with advertising is when it gets too obtrusive,…

There's a big difference between a moral objection and just not liking ads. I don't have any moral objection to ads, but I share this guy's dislike for them. I never click them and would, for various reasons, generally prefer to pay for a service rather than use it for free and have it monetize via advertising.

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

#77

Post by igorgue »

slewis wrote: post #20

Isn'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.

Changing the way we communicate (Facebook) isn't changing the world... Startups should quit that cliche it's getting old.

In the end any company purpose is to make money, if you get annoyed by ads, then go work for a non-profit.

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

#78

Post by dstein »

hugh3 wrote: post #52
dstein wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've misconstrued "improving someone's life" to being "meaningful work". Maybe a banker thinks his career is meaningful, but bankers do not improve people's lives. The people who built the house you're buying are the ones who improve your life. The banker is an unnecessary middleman. Middlemen in almost every scenario are redundant and merely add drag to our society. If we could eliminate the bankers job, automate…

What rot. The banker is a middleman, it's true, but a very necessary one. The bank connects people who have money (old people) to people who want to borrow money (young people), allowing house-sized quantities of money to be borrowed and paid back over a period of decades in a way that lowers risk and maximises accessibility for the depositors. If it weren't for banks, then most young people would be (essentially) un…

Likewise there's a big difference between forcefully inserting yourself as a necessary catalyst (aka, a middleman), and meaningfully improving someone's life.

It's the difference between someone who INVENTS a medication, and someone who collects 5% fee any time you PURCHASE the medicine. Sure, the pharmacists might go on and on about how they are helping people, but really it's the chemists that are doing the hard work that ultimately are the ones improving your life.

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

#79

Post by [deleted] »

rbarooah wrote: post #69
hugh3 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What rot. The banker is a middleman, it's true, but a very necessary one. The bank connects people who have money (old people) to people who want to borrow money (young people), allowing house-sized quantities of money to be borrowed and paid back over a period of decades in a way that lowers risk and maximises accessibility for the depositors. If it weren't for banks, then most young people would be (essentially) un…

You do realize that half of all wealth in the US is in the hands of 400 super-rich families, and that this concentration is increasing, not decreasing? Maybe you were being ironic and I just took you too literally!

[deleted]

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

#80

Post by hugh3 »

rbarooah wrote: post #69
hugh3 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What rot. The banker is a middleman, it's true, but a very necessary one. The bank connects people who have money (old people) to people who want to borrow money (young people), allowing house-sized quantities of money to be borrowed and paid back over a period of decades in a way that lowers risk and maximises accessibility for the depositors. If it weren't for banks, then most young people would be (essentially) un…

You do realize that half of all wealth in the US is in the hands of 400 super-rich families, and that this concentration is increasing, not decreasing? Maybe you were being ironic and I just took you too literally!

Uhhhh, [citation needed].

Let's do some plausibility arguments here. The total net wealth of the United States is about $54.2 trillion. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_in_the_United_States) Is that plausible? Sure, that's about $180K per person.

Now, let's suppose that half that $54.2 trillion was in the hands of four hundred families. This would give each of these four hundred families $67 billion each, on average. But the Forbes Rich List currently records nobody in the US with $67 billion; Gates and Buffett have $56 and $50 billion. I guess if you count all the Waltons as one family then they've got slightly more.

And of course the distribution is way tail-heavy. I don't have a list of the 400 richest people in the US alone, but the Forbes rich list implies that the ~400th richest person in the world has on the order of $3 billion. So the average out of the top 400 probably only has a few billion dollars.

In conclusion, I don't believe your numbers at all.

Post reply on HN