Why I'd never work for Google, Twitter, or Facebook • Hacker News Board

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

#121

Post by redcap » Mon, Aug 01, 2011, 10:32 PM UTC

cpeterso wrote: post #120

Homunculiheaded wrote: post #47

I'm not a practicing Buddhist but one of the principles of the Noble Eightfold path is the idea of 'right livelihood'. Which essentially means that you should avoid making a living doing something which does harm to other living things. One of the listed livelihoods to avoid is being in the business of making weapons. This really struck home when I was working for a company doing a lot of DARPA work. I had previously…

I used to work for a university supercomputer center, which (surprise, surprise) ran weapon simulations. I agree with you, though some DARPA research to "kill people better" does good by reducing collateral damage.

and they really have gotten a heck of a lot better at reducing collateral damage - compare ww2 carpet bombing to the Iraq "Shock and Awe" campaign - the civilian population were pretty much fine.

So I agree with you that "killing people better" does "save lives" in a sense (although no war would be the preferable option of course).

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

#122

Post by ckuehne » Mon, Aug 01, 2011, 10:33 PM UTC

veyron wrote: post #60

ckuehne wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why exactly is this harmful, i.e., who is harmed and by how much?

When my likeness is used in conjunction with a random product, there is an implicit assumption that I somehow support it. And other people may see it and distance themselves from me, refuse to do business, or refuse to hire me. As an extreme example, how would you like it if an unscrupulous porn site featured your face on an advertisement? Even worse, suppose a prospective client or employer saw your face on an adver…

"suppose a prospective client or employer saw your face on an advertisement for some banned substance"

But this is not what Google does, or am I missing something? AFAIK, what they actually do is more akin to shopping basket analysis supermarket chains do. So my question remains: How exactly does it harm you? Has Google ever linked you in a publicly identifiable way to some product? Moreover, if you feel bothered by the way they handle things, why don't you just stop using them?

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

#123

Post by AltIvan » Mon, Aug 01, 2011, 10:46 PM UTC

I cant believe this is posted on Hacker news...

Everything is not so simple; we use their (amazing) products, we pay by clicking ads. And it is useful for society as a whole (Google, Twitter and Facebook).

I am 100% sure that not even half of the programmers who work at Google are working in the "deliver ads" area. Many of them are working in a little piece of something that does something that someone else is going to find really useful... just like millions of people in earth!

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

#124

Post by veyron » Mon, Aug 01, 2011, 10:51 PM UTC

ckuehne wrote: post #122

veyron wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When my likeness is used in conjunction with a random product, there is an implicit assumption that I somehow support it. And other people may see it and distance themselves from me, refuse to do business, or refuse to hire me. As an extreme example, how would you like it if an unscrupulous porn site featured your face on an advertisement? Even worse, suppose a prospective client or employer saw your face on an adver…

"suppose a prospective client or employer saw your face on an advertisement for some banned substance" But this is not what Google does, or am I missing something? AFAIK, what they actually do is more akin to shopping basket analysis supermarket chains do. So my question remains: How exactly does it harm you? Has Google ever linked you in a publicly identifiable way to some product? Moreover, if you feel bothered by…

"But this is not what Google does, or am I missing something" "Moreover, if you feel bothered by the way they handle things, why don't you just stop using them?" <-- as explained in my example, I can't stop prospective clients or employers using google. I certainly can stop myself, but the damage happens when others see it

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

#125

Post by nazgulnarsil » Mon, Aug 01, 2011, 10:56 PM UTC

rbarooah wrote: post #83

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,…

This is effectively a straw-man. Treating advertising a way to connect suppliers with those with a need is a common, benign interpretation of what it is, but that view rests on assumptions of trust or informational parity between buyers and sellers. i.e. the sellers have to be meeting genuine needs, or the buyers have to have the information necessary to make good determinations. I don't see why we should assume that…

"genuine demand" is a true scotsman fallacy waiting to happen. Purchases are revealed preferences. That people have incoherent preferences doesn't mean you get to pontificate about what they should have.

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

#126

Post by nkassis » Mon, Aug 01, 2011, 11:21 PM UTC

cpeterso wrote: post #120

Homunculiheaded wrote: post #47

I'm not a practicing Buddhist but one of the principles of the Noble Eightfold path is the idea of 'right livelihood'. Which essentially means that you should avoid making a living doing something which does harm to other living things. One of the listed livelihoods to avoid is being in the business of making weapons. This really struck home when I was working for a company doing a lot of DARPA work. I had previously…

I used to work for a university supercomputer center, which (surprise, surprise) ran weapon simulations. I agree with you, though some DARPA research to "kill people better" does good by reducing collateral damage.

Well DARPA also does defensive work which is meant to deter and protect lives. Also the Internet was a defensive project by DARPA to enable better communication across the country in case of a emergency. Just reading a book on DARPA, what about projects like creating better artificial limbs for wounded soldiers?

Not saying DARPA is all saint like and all but a lot of their project are meant at protecting and saving lives (heck they are funding energy research to avoid wars based on oil etc)

Just going to say without military spending we wouldn't have a lot of great things. A non military way of funding these things would be even better.

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

#127

Post by nikcub » Mon, Aug 01, 2011, 11:21 PM UTC

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,…

you missed the step where they build profiles of users who haven't opted into having their information and details discovered in order to serve them advertising

tv advertisers don't have my email, don't know which websites I am visiting, don't know what I am searching for etc. etc.

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

#128

Post by sbierwagen » Mon, Aug 01, 2011, 11:26 PM UTC

cletus wrote: post #89

wzdd wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Normally I think your posts are very thoughful, but this time you are attacking a straw man. The OP clearly indicates near the bottom of the post that it's not about working for the betterment of humanity, but about work he personally finds fulfilling. Serving ads is not fulfilling work for him. Morals don't come into it.

If your interpretation is correct--which it may well be--then the OP fundamentally doesn't understand the business of any of these companies. Relatively few engineers work directly on serving ads. The vast majority work on other things. At Google this includes, but is not limited to, Android, Chrome, search, Google+, Maps and self-driving cars.

Except all those projects are about serving ads. Android is about serving ads on cellphones. Chrome about making browsers better, so consumers will use more Google products, and see more ads. G+ is about harvesting social graph data to serve ads. Self driving cars is so people will check their mail on the way into work, and see more ads.

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

#129

Post by CognitiveLens » Mon, Aug 01, 2011, 11:29 PM UTC

dpark wrote: post #106

wzdd wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Normally I think your posts are very thoughful, but this time you are attacking a straw man. The OP clearly indicates near the bottom of the post that it's not about working for the betterment of humanity, but about work he personally finds fulfilling. Serving ads is not fulfilling work for him. Morals don't come into it.

The OP was attacking a strawman. The assertion that Google and Twitter and Facebook are not working for the betterment of humanity (or are not doing fulfilling work) because they sell ads is ridiculous. Those companies may not be working for the betterment of humanity, but the ad angle is irrelevant. Take the following: > Google+ isn’t about sharing cat pictures, it’s about serving ads. Twitter’s massive network of 1…

> Whether they make that money by selling ads, or selling a product, or selling a subscription, or whatever else is irrelevant

The OP is making the point that, for him, the method of making money is entirely relevant to his sense of fulfillment when working for a company. He does not make the claim that a business cannot be doing lots of other cool things alongside making money - in fact, he points out that Google and Twitter and Facebook are indeed achieving fulfilling goals, but he objects to the income stream and therefore would not feel fulfilled by working for those companies. That's completely fair.

Substituting the claim of the OP about "serving ads" with "making money" distorts the entire message, and of course makes it sound ridiculous.

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

#130

Post by InclinedPlane » Mon, Aug 01, 2011, 11:30 PM UTC

Yeah, I liked google, twitter, and facebook back in their early days, before they sold out and went mainstream. I use a different search engine and social network now, they're pretty small, you probably haven't heard of them.