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

The Internet Made Me Sad Today

raganwald.posterous.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 186 posts

Re: The Internet Made Me Sad Today

#111

Post by potatolicious »

fleitz wrote: post #98
potatolicious wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think the blame is misplaced - raganwald addresses your point in the post, that "whatever people click on is obviously right", and that it's a cop-out. Yeah, a lot of people will choose a Big Mac over a salad, and a lot of people will scarf down fried chicken before a sandwich - that doesn't make their choices optimal, either for themselves or for society at large. You're also discounting the enormous effect…

Yes, government policy has a huge effect, for one it created the nation of chain smokers. What Google does is monetize the products of our school system, the school system produces mindless consumers incapable of producing on their own. Google connects these dependents of the state to the people who can produce the goods they need to live. If you want to change what Google promotes simply transform the school system…

I'm in favor of a lot of ways to fix this problem. What I cannot abide is the whole "people are stupid and want stupid things, I'm just fulfilling their stupid demands" excuse.

What hope does this world have when its best and brightest are content with swindling money out of the ill-informed?

Re: The Internet Made Me Sad Today

#112

Post by justincormack »

surrealize wrote: post #18

Maybe google knows that you are personally interested in social games? Or perhaps they're just trying to reach people who are on the internet right now . Anyway, point is, the page isn't the only signal used for ad targeting; you (and your search history) are another, as is the current time. As well as a variety of other things, I'm sure (I have no direct knowledge of google's ad targeting). I visited the page myself…

I get a lot of nexus ads, but Google knows I bought one months back so it is wasted inventory...

Re: The Internet Made Me Sad Today

#113

Post by bhousel »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #109
bhousel wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...Google is primarily an advertising company which makes excellent use of technology, not a technology company which makes good use of advertising. I absolutely agree with that, and don't really see anything controversial in that statement. I also think that Google has created more value for more people than probably any other company in history. If they are in fact an advertising company (which we agree) then the v…

I may be wrong but I think Patrick was referring to the people who can put up a minor website and earn 'lifestyle' living dollars out of it. Google has created this industry with their AdSense for Content system. Prior to this a small player (read small web site) would have no chance of selling advertising space to a 'big name' and conversely a 'big name' would never seek out the small guys (well their ad agency migh…

The 'value' creation is the small web site owners. And they filled the money pot for that eco system with remnant advertising dollars.

I think it's great that small website owners can use AdSense to monetize what they do, but that really doesn't support the claim that "Google has created more value for more people than probably any other company in history."

Re: The Internet Made Me Sad Today

#114

Post by staringispolite »

rbarooah wrote: post #55
staringispolite wrote: post #30

I applaud this fantastically succinct point: "Some foods taste good but kill you. Some drugs make you feel good but rot your brain. And some ads lead the curious away from knowledge." I do think, however, that it's incredibly difficult to construct an entirely machine-learning- and auction-based ad network without these sorts of problems popping up. Especially with presumably low dinosaur-related ad inventory to choo…

Perhaps the 'machine-learning-and-auction-based-ad network' just isn't a good thing. Is this really the end-state for human civilization?

I think it's a good thing in that it's led to the most commercially successful search and ads company in history (which - in large part - does deliver very relevant content, and relatively lower sadness than many competitors). But it's clear there is much room to improve.

That point you're addressing was meant to illustrate one way in which it is difficult to find an ad match that doesn't induce sadness. (As opposed to defend the current approach as the "end-state")

Re: The Internet Made Me Sad Today

#115

Post by Cushman »

jff wrote: post #28
Cushman wrote: post #21

Why doesn't Google offer some across-the-board AdSense subscription-- $10 a month to never see a single "Ads by Google"?

"Nice browser yous gots there... would be a shame if something were to happen to it, eh? Like if some ads was to get put on the pages... 10 bucks a month, me and my boys 'take care of' that for yous". The Google Protection Racket

What makes it qualitatively different from typical subscription-or-ad-supported services?

Re: The Internet Made Me Sad Today

#116

Post by rbarooah »

staringispolite wrote: post #114
rbarooah wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps the 'machine-learning-and-auction-based-ad network' just isn't a good thing. Is this really the end-state for human civilization?

I think it's a good thing in that it's led to the most commercially successful search and ads company in history (which - in large part - does deliver very relevant content, and relatively lower sadness than many competitors). But it's clear there is much room to improve. That point you're addressing was meant to illustrate one way in which it is difficult to find an ad match that doesn't induce sadness. (As opposed…

How about not showing ads in those cases?

Re: The Internet Made Me Sad Today

#117

Post by JadeNB »

raganwald wrote: post #48
joshrice wrote: post #20

I'm surprised no one has mentioned that AdWords can target users and offer them ads based on what they think they might want. They're not always contextual. Do you like to play games Reg?

This is a very interesting point, thank you. So here’s a thought experiment: I look at this article about dinosaurs, and Google shows me an ad about mountain bike holidays. Great timing, Spring is looming and I am making plans for Summer (Google knows this from watching my search history or annual credit card spend on travel.) It’s late afternoon, when I historically am distractible (witness reading about dinosaurs d…

> Google knows this from watching my search history or annual credit card spend on travel

Your search history, sure, but I don't think that Google can see credit-card spending ….

Re: The Internet Made Me Sad Today

#118

Post by tweak2live »

lkozma wrote: post #88
patio11 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a comment, not a debate. I'm not trying to crush raganwald's constructive and collect many finger snaps from the judges. I'm just trying to explain how Internet advertising works for a community which a) viscerally despises advertising, b) often dreams of working for an advertising company, and c) even if they don't work directly for the ad company will have their careers determined in large part by their abilit…

Patrick, your argument is flawless, but you've become a bit of a robot. There must be some reason why they don't put Marlboro ads in a lung cancer clinic or a Ballantine's ad in an alcohol rehab center. Surely they would be perfect choices for the well-defined audience that frequents those places and they would make perfect sense economically, more than whatever else they put on those walls. Someone might even come a…

OC does not misrepresent the point, he does not engage it, (those are distinct). In not engaging it, he provided tremendous value for everyone ITT.

[Thanks, Patrick]

However, if you want someone to bite - I will. Why bother engaging in moralizing if you don't care enough about your values to pay for them? Better yet, how much is your morality worth to you?

"I know that this engine is driven by the money, and the money is in luring people into Google's social thingamajiggy instead of trying to sell someone a book or a course or even a BBC/Discover/National Geographic edutainment special on dinosaurs or natural history.

But you know, the whole point of having values is that sometimes you don't do the most expedient thing or the most profitable thing or the easy thing. That’s what makes them values, you value them more then pecuniarum."

Well, if Raganwald wishes to educate children, why not create a service that serves educational ads instead of selling add slots to the highest bidder? Because it wouldn't be able to compete with Google outside of some tiny niche. Clearly, society as a whole is not willing to pay for this moral value, namely educating children.

It might be tempting to trivialize this by the way of "heartless businessmen" argument, but that would be misrepresenting the point. The point is - in a society where the only over-arching value is money, morality becomes a liability. One could argue that this is an inevitable state of human affairs due to $characteristic_of_human_nature. However, to me this seems to be more of an inevitable consequence of implementation of a universal means of exchange. Not everything boils down to money - true. But most things do. And most things will always be enough for some people. And the rest will ultimately have to follow. That, or find a clever way to monetize their "moral liabilities".

Re: The Internet Made Me Sad Today

#119

Post by 286c8cb04bda »

bhousel wrote: post #79
raganwald wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a very interesting point, thank you. So here’s a thought experiment: I look at this article about dinosaurs, and Google shows me an ad about mountain bike holidays. Great timing, Spring is looming and I am making plans for Summer (Google knows this from watching my search history or annual credit card spend on travel.) It’s late afternoon, when I historically am distractible (witness reading about dinosaurs d…

I don’t know if Google can come up with a way to make quadrillions of dollars and to keep me from being sad. Maybe my feelings are simply a cost of doing business, or maybe what I want is impossible. But I think my sadness is independent of the attraction the ad holds for me personally. My issue is with the relationship between the ad and the content. I don't think there can be another way. Advertising necessarily ex…

> Advertising necessarily extracts value out of your attention, while simultaneously devaluing your browsing/watching/listening/driving/etc experience.

While it it usually, maybe even almost always, does, I don't think advertising is required to be a distraction.

If I'm searching for information on a product, say, a pair of headphones for my wife or a diet for myself, and I see ads for headphones or diet books, then that advertising can be very beneficial.

The problem comes when, like in the article at hand, there's a product or service, totally unrelated to what I'm searching for, that's being injected in my attention stream.

Arguably, Google's incredible financial success is founded on making that information infinitesimally more likely to be useful to the reader compared to, e.g., prime-time television.

Re: The Internet Made Me Sad Today

#120

Post by e-dard »

bhousel wrote: post #113
ChuckMcM wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I may be wrong but I think Patrick was referring to the people who can put up a minor website and earn 'lifestyle' living dollars out of it. Google has created this industry with their AdSense for Content system. Prior to this a small player (read small web site) would have no chance of selling advertising space to a 'big name' and conversely a 'big name' would never seek out the small guys (well their ad agency migh…

The 'value' creation is the small web site owners. And they filled the money pot for that eco system with remnant advertising dollars. I think it's great that small website owners can use AdSense to monetize what they do, but that really doesn't support the claim that "Google has created more value for more people than probably any other company in history."

Your argument, though, doesn't make Patrick's point necessarily false.

Even if Google take more value from people than any other company, they can still provide a portion of that value to n other people, and assuming n is larger than any other company's n, Patrick's point still holds.

Post reply on HN