7 ms·
Demand Media makes money by monitoring ad networks and then paying people to churn out worthless content that pollutes search results. They watch metrics very
by woodman 10y ago
Demand Media makes money by monitoring ad networks and then paying people to churn out worthless content that pollutes search results. They watch metrics very carefully.
- ashitlerferad 10y agoSounds like a pretty unethical way to make money.
- woodman 10y agoI'm sure that those involved have very interesting rationalizations, but I don't think that it should be viewed from an ethics perspective. Expecting people to behave against their own self interest in the short term, for the good of strangers in the long term, will always end in disappointment. This is actually a pretty simple case of poorly stated objectives being cleverly met by people who are completely self interested. LOC metrics, rat tail bounties, click-through rates. I know this sounds kind of "well what did you expect wearing something like that", but if advertisers establish metrics that are more closely aligned with their objectives then we'd all be better off. But yeah, Demand Media is terrible and their employees are not on my Christmas card list.
- TeMPOraL 10y ago> I know this sounds kind of "well what did you expect wearing something like that" Which is a perfectly rational question/argument. > Expecting people to behave against their own self interest in the short term, for the good of strangers in the long term, will always end in disappointment. I agree. This is a systemic problem, and appeals to ethics won't work (and the advertisers won't change their metrics because of them) - one needs to attack the economic incentives underlying their current strategies.
- mrgoldenbrown 10y ago>Which is a perfectly rational question/argument. How is that rational at all? That question is referencing the common practice of blaming rape victims rather than the rapists, by questioning what the victim was wearing.
- dionidium 10y agoIt is a perfectly rational question. You're layering a bunch of unnecessary stuff about blame on top of it. Rape is always the fault of the rapist. Full stop. Now, given that there probably always will be rapists in the world, can we be allowed to ask questions that help prevent rape?
- superuser2 10y agoNo, because rapists are given cover and can more easily rationalize their behavior when society implies that rape is a natural or expected consequence of the failure to take precautions against it.
- dionidium 10y agoRape is a natural or expected consequence of the failure to take precautions against it. It doesn't matter what society implies. Note that I can say that while unequivocally condemning rape and providing zero cover to rapists. I am describing what is, not what I think ought to be.
- amrangaye 10y ago>> Rape is a natural or expected consequence of the failure to take precautions against it. I don't understand - how is that not victim blaming, and going against your last line? And how exactly do you take precautions against rape, especially when you factor in the fact that the perpetrators are far more likely to be people who wield some kind of authority over the victim, including family members, bosses at work, police and security forces, etc. which is true at least where I come from (West Africa), and leads to chronic under reporting / decisions by families to either blame the victim or sweep the whole thing under the rug. Or am I somehow misunderstanding your meaning?
- woodman 10y ago> (and the advertisers won't change their metrics because of them) uh. That isn't what I was doing - one party's act in self interest can benefit third parties (even if accidentally)... like electing to not set yourself on fire in a crowded Museum of Yarn and Flammables. > ...attack the economic incentives underlying their current strategies. That has been going on since the first ad click payment. I'm guessing that the ideal solution is one that would require a scale of economy that is outside the capabilities of the majority of the market participants, and that is why we still have catch the monkey ads.
- okc 10y ago>if advertisers establish metrics that are more closely aligned with their objectives then we'd all be better off Disagree. Thats a personal value judgment and an ethical perspective viewing efficient corporations as utilitarian bodies fulfilling the greater good.
- dave2000 10y agoKind of odd to even bring ethics up when discussing how websites make money. It doesn't matter at all. Ethics is normally used to discuss other people getting harmed by actions, but when all that harm can be removed simply by closing the browser and doing something else it's barely worth talking about. Is it ethical for a shop to advertise its products in the shop windows when the people running the shop know that there are higher quality products available in a competitors store? Who gives a shit?
- nitrogen 10y agoKind of odd to even bring ethics up when discussing how websites make money. It doesn't matter at all. This is why we can't have nice things. Because people adopt a FYGM attitude. Because they piss in the pool we all have to swim in. ...all that harm can be removed simply by... ...quitting smoking? Throwing away the prescription pain meds? Giving up junk food? How about not robbing people of their valuable time and money? How about moving past negative-sum business models where the distributed costs far outweigh the concentrated gains?
- runamok 10y ago> How about moving past ... where the distributed costs far outweigh the concentrated gains? That pretty much describes living in the US and even Europe to a degree compared to most of the world. How deep should morality go? Almost all of us in the US consume an order of magnitude more than most of the world for instance.
- babuskov 10y agoIf I'm actively searching for some information I need, I cannot "simply close the browser and do something else". Search results are polluted with junk and time it takes to find useful information has increased a lot. Finding in-depth information is getting harder and harder because of flood of low quality pages that only hit the keywords and skim the topic on the surface.
- TeMPOraL 10y ago> Who gives a shit? I do. That's probably why I won't be running an effective business any time soon. Being nice and not fucking people over doesn't get you far in highly competitive markets. I strongly second what 'nitrogen wrote[0]. This is very much about ethics. > Is it ethical for a shop to advertise its products in the shop windows when the people running the shop know that there are higher quality products available in a competitors store? In my opinion, no. Basically, if you know your product is shit, you are morally obliged to make it better or find something else to sell; lying to people to make them buy your stuff instead of something objectively better is fucking them over for your own gain. Think about it the next time you find yourself on the receiving end of such businessmen. [0] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11759628 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11759628
- Trundle 10y agoSure, if you've got a concept of morality based on primarily being motivated to help others rather than pursuing self interest. If that's the case though then the vast majority of people would fall under the category and make it a pretty meaningless description.
- fennecfoxen 10y ago> if you've got a concept of morality based on primarily being motivated to help others Ethically, self-interest is fine. Failing to help others isn't a huge deal either. It's the part where you're actively and deliberately harming others (by polluting search results - impairing both search engines, as a company, and their users) that we're objecting to.
- Trundle 10y agoI think the idea of "polluting search results" requires too much of a subjective concept of what good content is to say whether producing one kind or not is unethical. They aren't producing what they are because people aren't looking at it and I'm very sceptical of any notion that people don't generally do what they want. It has a very centrally planned feel to say "people want think pieces" or "people want to read about X" when reality shows that people want easily consumed clickbait and listicles.
- qb45 10y agoPeople generally do what they want to do, but they base their decisions on incomplete information on what they are going to get. Lots of crap wouldn't get its clicks if it didn't appear to be something it isn't.
- Trundle 10y agoTheir crap is what it appears to be though. If they weren't delivering on their clickbaity titles then people would soon learn. It's not like they're anonymous publishers, sites like ehow and livestrong are strong brands. They're not counting on unaware users.
- Fiahil 10y agoYes, it's called "advertisement". Sad welcome to 2016.
- TeMPOraL 10y agoVery sad welcome because somehow working in advertisement industry is considered a respectable occupation in 2016. The cognitive dissonance of the society is sometimes mind-boggling.
- oarsinsync 10y agoSee the glorification of the advertising industry in a popular TV show "Mad Men"
- jcoffland 10y agoWhich is a show about how cool it is to be an asshole and ruin your own and other people's lives by making extremely selfish decisions. This is also why I won't watch House of Cards.
- coldtea 10y agoSo, do you only watch shows about Gandhi, MLK and J. Christ? Not sure about Mad Men, but HoC doesn't "glorify" its subject. And tons of great art is about "assholes". The thing is, and this is a very christian message, assholes are people too.