5 ms·

Do you feel the same way about software devs who work for food delivery/laundry service startups and the like? Writing clickbait is no better or worse than "cha

by rfrank 11y ago

Do you feel the same way about software devs who work for food delivery/laundry service startups and the like? Writing clickbait is no better or worse than "changing the world" one delivery at a time. Everyone's just chasing easy money.

TeMPOraL 11y ago
That's why I label them "dishonest" in my head, and blacklist the worst offenders. Yes, I won't use your service if you bullshit too much in your copy.
knughit 11y ago
How is helping people for money equivalent to lying to people?
- rfrank 11y ago
  How is a "sharing" economy, or the vast majority of startups, helping anyone but stakeholders? Without citing a particular piece of content it's hard to say anyone's lying, just being way too dramatic for more clicks. Because that is the current incentive structure for web publishing. Bullshit outrage pieces make way more money than long form investigative peices that are significantly harder to make, and exponentially less people read. Just like working on big hard problems takes more time/talent/research. Easy money and complaining for everyone!
  - nikatwork 11y ago
    There's a clear ethical difference between a frothy startup and deliberately provoking negative public behavior.
    - rfrank 11y ago
      Does secret deliberately provoke negative behavior? How about yik yak? Until the incentive structure changes for writers, they'll keep writing that stuff. Just the way it is.
_petronius 11y ago
Yeah, to be honest, I do. Although I think the reasons there are different. There is an infection of using superlative language at every turn, and it is especially bad (but not limited to) how conversation happens in the US, and countries like Britain that increasingly model their politics and culture on the US[0]. The current culture makes nuance and explanation hard, because those don't fit into sound bytes. When we live in a world where Jeff Bezos can declare, with a straight face, that 3000 words is a "long read", we're kinda screwed when it comes to politicians being able to make any point that isn't a slogan painted on the backdrop they are speaking in front of, or a startup to declare "we are just building a service that is one iteration better than the existing ones on the market, and people will pay us good money to use it". I mean you can do that, and you can probably even make good money at it, but you won't get the fawning press or the billion-dollar hyperinflated valuations. [0]: A strong statement, especially to make in passing, I know. But happy to lay out my reasoning on that point for anyone who wants it, and I promise it's not just the usual bellyaching about "creeping Americanisation" that gets thrown around a lot.

by rfrank 11y ago

TeMPOraL 11y ago

That's why I label them "dishonest" in my head, and blacklist the worst offenders. Yes, I won't use your service if you bullshit too much in your copy.

knughit 11y ago

How is helping people for money equivalent to lying to people?

rfrank 11y ago
How is a "sharing" economy, or the vast majority of startups, helping anyone but stakeholders? Without citing a particular piece of content it's hard to say anyone's lying, just being way too dramatic for more clicks. Because that is the current incentive structure for web publishing. Bullshit outrage pieces make way more money than long form investigative peices that are significantly harder to make, and exponentially less people read. Just like working on big hard problems takes more time/talent/research. Easy money and complaining for everyone!
- nikatwork 11y ago
  There's a clear ethical difference between a frothy startup and deliberately provoking negative public behavior.
  - rfrank 11y ago
    Does secret deliberately provoke negative behavior? How about yik yak? Until the incentive structure changes for writers, they'll keep writing that stuff. Just the way it is.

_petronius 11y ago

Yeah, to be honest, I do. Although I think the reasons there are different. There is an infection of using superlative language at every turn, and it is especially bad (but not limited to) how conversation happens in the US, and countries like Britain that increasingly model their politics and culture on the US[0]. The current culture makes nuance and explanation hard, because those don't fit into sound bytes. When we live in a world where Jeff Bezos can declare, with a straight face, that 3000 words is a "long read", we're kinda screwed when it comes to politicians being able to make any point that isn't a slogan painted on the backdrop they are speaking in front of, or a startup to declare "we are just building a service that is one iteration better than the existing ones on the market, and people will pay us good money to use it". I mean you can do that, and you can probably even make good money at it, but you won't get the fawning press or the billion-dollar hyperinflated valuations. [0]: A strong statement, especially to make in passing, I know. But happy to lay out my reasoning on that point for anyone who wants it, and I promise it's not just the usual bellyaching about "creeping Americanisation" that gets thrown around a lot.