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

131–140 of 173 posts

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

#131

Post by rbarooah »

nazgulnarsil wrote: post #125
rbarooah wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Where is anyone pontificating about what people should have?

I also don't see any mention of whether people's preferences are coherent or not.

I didn't use the words 'genuine demand', but I did talk about genuine need. This isn't a true Scotsman fallacy because I am talking about the buyers ability to get their needs met, and not debating what qualifies as a genuine need - which is as you say, a revealed preference.

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

#132

Post by akronim »

temphn wrote: post #18
MartinCron wrote: post #5

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.

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.

Assuming the government is still going to fund a TV station, not having a license for BBC would just mean it was funded out of general taxation revenue. Having a license system or not is irrelevant, it's still being funded by taxation either ay.

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

#133

Post by akronim »

AlexC04 wrote: post #41

Every time I click on a title like "Why I'd never work for Google, Twitter, or Facebook" I keep expecting it to be a great big 96 point for page saying "Because they wouldn't fucking hire me" So far, I've only been disappointed by these troll posts.

or in comic form, http://xkcd.com/192/

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

#134

Post by munificent »

sbierwagen wrote: post #128
cletus wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

None of that nullifies the direct value those products provide. If self driving cars mean I check my mail on the way to work and see more ads, it's still a self-driving car. I don't see the problem in staring at a couple of electronic billboards if I can live in the future (and not have to stare at real billboards whizzing past me, for that matter).

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

#135

Post by andylei »

rbarooah wrote: post #131
nazgulnarsil wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

Where is anyone pontificating about what people should have? I also don't see any mention of whether people's preferences are coherent or not. I didn't use the words 'genuine demand', but I did talk about genuine need. This isn't a true Scotsman fallacy because I am talking about the buyers ability to get their needs met, and not debating what qualifies as a genuine need - which is as you say, a revealed preference.

> I am talking about the buyers ability to get their needs met

so a 'genuine need' being met is a conversion, right? isn't that what google's algorithms and advertisers optimize for?

i think in your framework of evaluation, that makes better advertisement inherently more moral, and thus, working for a company that's trying to increase conversions an inherently moral task.

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

#136

Post by andylei »

sbierwagen wrote: post #128
cletus wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

so journalism doesn't serve society because its "about serving ads"?

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

#137

Post by rysulliv »

I think this is a bit of a pessamistic view of the companies in questions. I mean sure we can all agree that their revenue model at the end of the day is ALL about advertising, and sure companies only care about making money right? So I can see where you care coming from and why, but there are a lot of engineers at those places who could care less about serving up a single ad.

Google, Facebokk, Twitter, and anyone else who wants to make a dime off of advertising has 1 goal that should always be higher on their priority list than serving up ads...getting more users and keeping them happy. Without the massive scale of users that these companies have, who would care how many ads they are serving.

I know what I am saying is all very obvious, but I think there are far more people inside those companies that are aiming to solve and inovate on problems within the user space rather than just the ad space.... just IMHO.

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

#138

Post by rbarooah »

andylei wrote: post #135
rbarooah wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where is anyone pontificating about what people should have? I also don't see any mention of whether people's preferences are coherent or not. I didn't use the words 'genuine demand', but I did talk about genuine need. This isn't a true Scotsman fallacy because I am talking about the buyers ability to get their needs met, and not debating what qualifies as a genuine need - which is as you say, a revealed preference.

> I am talking about the buyers ability to get their needs met so a 'genuine need' being met is a conversion, right? isn't that what google's algorithms and advertisers optimize for? i think in your framework of evaluation, that makes better advertisement inherently more moral, and thus, working for a company that's trying to increase conversions an inherently moral task.

I don't see how I've equated a conversion to a genuine need being met. That would imply that nobody ever buys anything that isn't suited to their needs.

I guess I'm falling for trolls here.

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

#139

Post by dpark »

CognitiveLens wrote: post #129
dpark wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 an…

Then he should just say "I am unwilling to work for a company that sells ads", rather than trying to say that none of Google's work is meaningful simply because they sell ads.

I don't believe substituting "serving ads" with "making money" distorts the message at all. I think it merely highlights how immature his stance is. He stated quite plainly that Twitter isn't about connecting people, that Facebook isn't about sharing links, because they are about "serving ads". The implication here is that a company which sells ads cannot do anything, which is ridiculous. He set up a strawman.

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

#140

Post by jasonlotito »

majmun wrote: post #110
jasonlotito wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> on Facebook I'm being blindly targeted with adds where system thinks it knows what i want. Actually, you aren't. I mean, you can be, but Facebook allows for highly targeted advertising. You can fine tune your ad to go out to a rather specific group of people. That you fall into that category means you might see those ads. Of course, some ads go out to as many people as possible. As for how to put those ads on Faceb…

I'm not talking only about the people that put their advertisments. I am talking about both sides. why is it not working for all at the same time? People that see advertisments should see what they want to see . and not see crap. Maybe in theory this is how advertising is envisioned but it is not working in practice. Proof: I'm always seeing garbage in ads on facebook and google. therfore it is not working for all. t…

What? I'm gonna assume your not a native English speaker, and make some assumptions here.

Just because it doesn't work for you on Google or Facebook doesn't mean "advertising" doesn't work. Advertising is more than just Google and Facebook.

Furthermore, your "proof" isn't proof. It's nothing, really.

Finally: "we don't have to call it advertising"

A rose by any other name is still a rose.

Post reply on HN