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

Fark NotNewsletter: Google farked us over

fark.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–58 of 58 posts

Re: Fark NotNewsletter: Google farked us over

#51

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

tomcam wrote: post #23

I have complex feelings about this. As a libertarian type I say one forces you to use Google (yes, I know they're by far the most effective ad network). I don't feel like their natural monopoly in search has hurt me much. Normally I would not see any reason for the US to get involved in GOOG's business. On the other hand, I have seen Google do its very best to pervert the free market. Their name appears well over 300…

There's no such thing as an unperverted free market, and even if such a thing existed, it would be a horror.

I really wish there was more understanding that economic theory is essentially political, that markets are about political power relationships, not about goods and services, and that there's always a government of some kind as a central enforcer behind every market - and it probably isn't truly democratically accountable, no matter how often people get to vote.

Monopolies and cartels that treat customers with arrogance and contempt are the inevitable, predictable products of competitive market capitalism.

And antitrust is a political weapon, not a moral or economic one. Google will not be hit with antitrust action unless it makes some political missteps. I expect that for now, it's far more useful to keep Google intact.

Re: Fark NotNewsletter: Google farked us over

#52

Post by TeMPOraL »

aeze wrote: post #30
cpayne wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never really understand why comments like this get downvoted. There seems to be love for the free market. That is until the free market goes against what I want. Then the free market sucks! What if FARK was another type of business. Say it is the corner 7-11[1]. They have been there for 18 years, and their major source of customers was the big factory next door. Factory decides to either move / redesign / whatever,…

What people really want is a competitive market.

What people want is in conflict.

What entrepreneurs want is to play the game and win big. What consumers want is for every entrepreneur to play the game, but for no one to win big. So yes, consumers want competition - entrepreneurs not so much.

This whole thing is actually funny to look from the outside - big payoffs are essentially a carrot dangled in front of people so that they start companies and get into competition with each other, which drives innovation and lowers prices. But it's meant to be a lie - you can't deliver on the promise too much, you can't have one player actually win, because this destroys competition, and with it it destroys the benefits the whole process brings to the society.

Re: Fark NotNewsletter: Google farked us over

#53

Post by adtac »

tomcam wrote: post #48
jimmywanger wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Filipinos, Samoans, Latinos, African Americans, and other persons of color? Plenty of non-white people working at Google. What does this ethnic diversity have to do with your little free market rant?

> your little free market rant Great way to contribute to the conversation!

Great way to not answer his question.

Re: Fark NotNewsletter: Google farked us over

#54

Post by [deleted] »

eykanal wrote: post #15
TeMPOraL wrote: post #3

It's free market, isn't it? Take it or leave it - nobody forces you to use Google ad network. ;). /s At this point I'm convinced that nothing but regulation can make those big companies - on which our digital lives are more and more dependent - to provide even a modicum of customer support. Right now they don't care, because they simply don't have to - a HN headline every other week doesn't create measurable losses,…

Because the theoretical "free market" is nothing like what actually happens in practice. The Economist had a great writeup on this a few days ago [1], but the short of it is that Google is the definitive market leader, with almost no one in second place. Moving to a different network is simply accepting that your ads will perform worse. Additionally, responding to outright fraud by Google with the statement "move els…

[deleted]

Re: Fark NotNewsletter: Google farked us over

#55

Post by jandrese »

sparkzilla wrote: post #28
dplgk wrote: post #25

> Due to the way Fark was built, we are invisible to both SEO and Social Media traffic. What does this mean? Clearly, they can't block anyone from sharing fark links on facebook and also, this: https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Afark.com

While fark.com may rank well, as a news aggregator the individual pages inside the site don't rank well. My site suffers the same problem: despite having thousands of pages of content, they all sit at the bottom of Google's results. So now I don't even bother to try to rank on Google and just use traffic from social media instead.

Why would Google want to have an aggregator rank high on their search results? They are the middlemen of online news. It seems much better to have the actual article come first so you don't have to click through the link in the header to get to the content you care about.

Re: Fark NotNewsletter: Google farked us over

#57

Post by sparkzilla »

jandrese wrote: post #55
sparkzilla wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While fark.com may rank well, as a news aggregator the individual pages inside the site don't rank well. My site suffers the same problem: despite having thousands of pages of content, they all sit at the bottom of Google's results. So now I don't even bother to try to rank on Google and just use traffic from social media instead.

Why would Google want to have an aggregator rank high on their search results? They are the middlemen of online news. It seems much better to have the actual article come first so you don't have to click through the link in the header to get to the content you care about.

Yes, that's the reason, and that's why it's a challenge for anyone trying to promote a news aggregator using Google search.

Re: Fark NotNewsletter: Google farked us over

#58

Post by trprog »

ue_ wrote: post #50
trprog wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>That is until the free market goes against what I want. Then the free market sucks! I'm not sure anyone is saying that the free market sucks. People are saying that there is no free market in some sectors and that, in the absence of a reasonably efficient free market, the least worst alternative is regulation.

I think it sucks, but that's because I'm a Communist.

heh, fair point. Command economy advocates aside nobody is saying the free market sucks :)
Post reply on HN