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

Google bans cryptocurrency ads

support.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 379 posts

Re: Google bans cryptocurrency ads

#241

Post by tropdrop »

purple-again wrote: post #103
JFFalcon wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. I'm amazed the comment got such a negative reaction. I can't think of anyone I know who would be happy about being called a chick, however casually.

https://hackerchick.com/ http://chickswhocode.com/ http://chickscancode.com/ I spent 5 seconds googling.

You have to remember that a minority group will often attempt to reclaim a derogatory term as their own to take the bite out of it. A great example is the term "Yankee" back during the American revolution, but I am sure you can think of a more recent term this has happened to.

Re: Google bans cryptocurrency ads

#242

Post by iamdave »

mgkimsal wrote: post #230
Karawebnetwork wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is generally accepted as gender neutral. Lately, I've seen a lot of LGBT communities encouraging its use. Googling "Is dude gender neutral?" results in a lot of sites telling you that it is. "In the early 1960s, dude became prominent in surfer culture as a synonym of guy or fella. The female equivalent was "dudette" or "dudess," but these have both fallen into disuse, and "dude" is now also used as a unisex term."…

"slang for an individual, typically male" is in the first sentence. I would assume that's the more prominent intent. Googling "Is dude gender neutral?".... why would I even have that question if my entire community has never called that in to question in the first place?

why would I even have that question if my entire community has never called that in to question in the first place?

To understand and see how communities that aren't yours act, and interact with vernacular versus shuttering one's self behind the assumption that because your group sees x in a certain way, other groups must by default see it similarly.

Re: Google bans cryptocurrency ads

#243

Post by malvosenior »

s73v3r_ wrote: post #231
malvosenior wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The choice to get offended by something as innocuous as the OP is not something I want in my tech discussions so I flagged it. I’m sure many others feel the same way. We don’t need tone policing here.

You say "tone policing", I say being respectful.

It’s very much with the tone that Sarah herself uses. The tweet in question says:

> All of this has gone too far!!!!! It was fine when you paranoid dorks were out there scamming each other, please leave the normies alone!!!!!!!!!!!

She’s obviously using a light tone and so is the OP here.

Re: Google bans cryptocurrency ads

#244

Post by jonknee »

dmix wrote: post #194
jonknee wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People latch onto it because it's a powerful idea and because the underlying technology has a lot of legitimacy to it. A few, but the vast majority have latched onto it because they think it will make them rich. Almost no one buying into cryptocurrencies could explain a blockchain if their life depended on it.

> A few, but the vast majority have latched onto it because they think it will make them rich Self-interested value creation has generated the vast majority of great achievements in the world. I don't see what wrong with that being a primary motivation to invest time and resources into something? Why else should people do it? Only for fun or altruistic reasons? If that was the case then cryptocurrencies would still b…

> Why else should people do it? Only for fun or altruistic reasons?

Well the OP I was responding to suggested that people were doing it because "it's a powerful idea and because the underlying technology has a lot of legitimacy to it".

Re: Google bans cryptocurrency ads

#246

Post by darawk »

root_axis wrote: post #236
dpc_pw wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> always been a community made up of shady folks That's not fair. Shady folks are just getting more publicity. Noone talks about people who created stuff that works and doesn't scam people. And there's a lot of such stuff. This space is growing because of such people, despite the shady folks.

I didn't say they were evil , but most of the early activity around bitcoin was swirling around in the dark markets which I think is totally fair to describe as shady.

Those were the users, not the creators.

Re: Google bans cryptocurrency ads

#247

Post by ggggtez »

an4rchy wrote: post #191

I wonder how much of current ad revenue (Google/FB) is coming from cryptocurrency related companies and how this might negatively impact their earnings. However, it may be a small amount or they both factored this change into their forecasting before announcements.

Advertizing scams may give short term profit, but could also lead to long term losses as websites choose to move to a different, less scammy platform.

This is probably a case where the short term financials is the exact wrong way to think about the problem.

Re: Google bans cryptocurrency ads

#249

Post by CodeMage »

aptsurdist wrote: post #162
purple-again wrote: post #49

Wow thanks for that, this chick seems awesome. Maybe my reading comprehension is shit but I never saw where she linked to her 'centralized feelings on bitcoin' or whatever. Did anyone see where that is? I've been sitting here in my little traditional finance world shaking my head at Bitcoin for years and would love to see her much more elegantly written tear down.

There was another thread commenting on the usage of the term "chick" and how it can be interpreted as derogatory. I agree that this term can be derogatory because it can be condescending. The commenter who took offense was flagged, and nested replies derided the commenter for taking offense. I am really disappointed to see the hacker news community unable to appreciate the nuance of this discussion. I know this term…

I was really glad to see that Hacker News community was able to recognize white knighting and deal with it decisively. While it's indisputable that "chick" can be interpreted as derogatory, context is even more important than knee-jerk hair-trigger sensitivity.

Re: Google bans cryptocurrency ads

#250

Post by [deleted] »

kelukelugames wrote: post #38
chx wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the best tweetstorm ever on topic by Sarah Jeong: https://twitter.com/sarahjeong/status/953464303960469504 > All of this has gone too far!!!!! It was fine when you paranoid dorks were out there scamming each other, please leave the normies alone!!!!!!!!!!!

I discovered her twitter account during the uber trial. She is hilarious and worth following.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN