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

171–180 of 186 posts

Re: The Internet Made Me Sad Today

#171

Post by Drbble »

tweak2live wrote: post #123
potatolicious wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

None, whatsoever. But what alternative do the "best and the brightest" have? After all, in order to keep being "the best and the brightest" they do need to pay rent (and have an occasional steak dinner). What value is there in educating if one can simply purchase social capital when one needs it? Exhibit A: http://www.facebook.com/BPTeamUSA Exhibit B: http://www.altria.com/en/cms/Responsibility/investing-in-com...

Interesting question: for younger folks who weren't aware of the Altria name change, does anyone think Altria is not a criminal enterprise?

Re: The Internet Made Me Sad Today

#172

Post by crusso »

rbarooah wrote: post #164
crusso wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I dunno. Am I paying you for your advice or are am I getting it for free? What right or expectation do I have to assume that you're giving me good homework advice? Are you a friend of mine? Am I relying upon my past experience? If I'm not paying you, you're not a friend of mine, you're just some marketer paying sites to show your ads... I expect no real value from them. I almost never click on Google Ads embedded in…

It sounds like you live in a world where people only take responsibility for the consequences of their actions if they are paid to do so.

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean by "take responsibility".

I'm reacting mostly to those two words since they have legal ramifications.

You tell me what you mean by "take responsibility", and I'll tell you whether or not I think that there should be a business or binding legal relationship before someone should be compelled to "take responsibility".

Re: The Internet Made Me Sad Today

#173

Post by Drbble »

rbarooah wrote: post #164
crusso wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I dunno. Am I paying you for your advice or are am I getting it for free? What right or expectation do I have to assume that you're giving me good homework advice? Are you a friend of mine? Am I relying upon my past experience? If I'm not paying you, you're not a friend of mine, you're just some marketer paying sites to show your ads... I expect no real value from them. I almost never click on Google Ads embedded in…

It sounds like you live in a world where people only take responsibility for the consequences of their actions if they are paid to do so.

Aka the real world.

Google ads stink? Turn on kiosk mode and load wikipedia before letting your kid on the computer. Or just download some quality content and unplug the network cable, which is probably the best idea anyway.

Re: The Internet Made Me Sad Today

#174

Post by Drbble »

staringispolite wrote: post #141
rbarooah wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about not showing ads in those cases?

I'm no expert, but two things come to mind: 1a) That is sub-optimal for ad publishers. I think in building such a system you have to assume they want to make the most money. And while ANY ad may not make much money, it's certainly not capped at the $0 they can expect from NO ad. 1b) Also: imagine if you implement AdCompanyX's html, and you see nothing. Is it broken? Out of ad inventory? Not yet parsed your page? It's…

FYI your cutoff idea is what Google actually does. Ad quality is a problem Google works on. The main complaint people have is that Google doesn't do a good enough job of overruling users "for their own good" when those users are consistently actively telling Google what they want to see.

Re: The Internet Made Me Sad Today

#175

Post by Drbble »

buddy_nuggs wrote: post #27
ericdykstra wrote: post #6

So who is the author blaming? He's not blaming the end user (the one that makes those ads worth the most to both google and content sites). - Is he blaming Google for maximizing ad revenue for the content site? - Is he blaming the content sites for wanting to maximize their own revenue on page views? (or, perhaps, for being too lazy to sell ads themselves?) - Is he blaming the people who spend the money to get their…

Based on my reading of the article and raganwald's comment below, my understanding is he's blaming talented employees or entrepreneurs who choose to use their skills to create low-value (in societal terms, not monetary) products and services. And it seems he's not so much blaming as bemoaning. The post struck a chord with me because I am evaluating several employment offers. The one that gives me the opportunity to w…

Without mobile ad analytics, prices are inefficient and therefore ads are biased to the most profitable buyers, not the highest quality.

Do you have any reason to suspect that quality is more profitable?

Re: The Internet Made Me Sad Today

#176

Post by janardanyri »

rmc wrote: post #167
tlogan wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great overview of how ads work, but the rant is still valid. As the end, the environment around us will end up to be very similar to one described in the movie Idiocracy.

People have been complaining that society will turn into "Idiocracy" (or similar) for generations. The Roman satirist Jeuvanal complained (in 100 CE) that modern people only cared for "bread and circuses" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bread_and_Circuses

As both your link and the broader scope of European history indicate, Roman society of 100 CE was in fact in the midst of a many-generations-long decline into irrelevance, so this is perhaps an unintentionally apt citation.

Re: The Internet Made Me Sad Today

#177

Post by rbarooah »

crusso wrote: post #172
rbarooah wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It sounds like you live in a world where people only take responsibility for the consequences of their actions if they are paid to do so.

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean by "take responsibility". I'm reacting mostly to those two words since they have legal ramifications. You tell me what you mean by "take responsibility", and I'll tell you whether or not I think that there should be a business or binding legal relationship before someone should be compelled to "take responsibility".

Is there no room in your worldview for values that aren't imposed by force?

Re: The Internet Made Me Sad Today

#178

Post by rbarooah »

Drbble wrote: post #173
rbarooah wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It sounds like you live in a world where people only take responsibility for the consequences of their actions if they are paid to do so.

Aka the real world. Google ads stink? Turn on kiosk mode and load wikipedia before letting your kid on the computer. Or just download some quality content and unplug the network cable, which is probably the best idea anyway.

Doesn't anyone you know care about anything they aren't paid to care about?

Re: The Internet Made Me Sad Today

#179

Post by rbarooah »

Drbble wrote: post #170
rbarooah wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ad consumers experience an externality to the transaction between google and the publisher. The sum of the game may be negative or positive. Which do you think it is, and why?

Google's ads are the single easiest-to-block set of ads in the history of mankind, online or meatspace. The simple fact that most folks don't bother to block then show that either they aren't too negative, or people are so dumb and lazy that humanity is a lost cause anyway.

Only if you assume that being 'dumb' or 'lazy' is predominantly innate and not shaped by experience or opportunity.

Re: The Internet Made Me Sad Today

#180

Post by rbarooah »

Drbble wrote: post #174
staringispolite wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm no expert, but two things come to mind: 1a) That is sub-optimal for ad publishers. I think in building such a system you have to assume they want to make the most money. And while ANY ad may not make much money, it's certainly not capped at the $0 they can expect from NO ad. 1b) Also: imagine if you implement AdCompanyX's html, and you see nothing. Is it broken? Out of ad inventory? Not yet parsed your page? It's…

FYI your cutoff idea is what Google actually does. Ad quality is a problem Google works on. The main complaint people have is that Google doesn't do a good enough job of overruling users "for their own good" when those users are consistently actively telling Google what they want to see.

If that were true, why would there be a need for Adblock? Google would just stop showing ads to people who don't like them, or would be showing us all such great stuff that we'd be grateful for them.
Post reply on HN