5 ms·

Clearly it's not an analog comparison, I never said it was. I wrote my comment because online advertising is a murky and often slimy place. Facebook & Google

by aresant 10y ago

Clearly it's not an analog comparison, I never said it was. I wrote my comment because online advertising is a murky and often slimy place. Facebook & Google are the world's two largest online advertising companies - they sell and influence your attention for a living. Google now spends more money lobbying the government than any other corporation (1) including GE, Exxon, etc, etc. Depending on Apple's stock performance Google is either the #1 or #2 most valuable company in the WORLD. Facebook is not far behind in either category. Companies, like people, are more complex than the shiny, white-washed PR version. The 50onRed story is about a cockroach who will live & die quickly, like a million other cockroaches. I am less interested in the cockroach and more interested in the elephant given it's weight and past propensity for bad behavior. (1) http://www.dailydot.com/politics/google-political-lobbying-spending-q1-2015/ http://www.dailydot.com/politics/google-political-lobbying-s...

kbenson 10y ago
I'm pretty sure I understand your point, but you're going about it in a way that makes it hard to have a useful conversation. You've essentially said "online advertising is bad, because I say so, and these companies are big and they do it, so you should be worried about them." Is all advertising bad? What makes advertising bad? To what degree do these companies participate in that behavior? Is all lobbying bad? Should we assume them lobbying is bad because it exists? Is the total dollars spent lobbying the right value to look at? Perhaps lobbying dollars per revenue, pre profit, or per employee is a more important metric? I would love to discuss any one of these topics, but your comment is too vague on any details to be able to start from any useful point, so I've resorted to asking for clarification.
- TeMPOraL 10y ago
  I think the GP's points in the comment you replied to are basically: - advertising in general is a "a murky and often slimy place" - Google and Facebook are two behemots, who live in and out of that "murky place" - given their side, influence over public life (as evidenced by lobbying efforts, besides the usual things), and "past propensity for bad behavior" (as the GP tried to evidence with some examples), they're much more interesting to look at than some random startup that's obviously evil, but also obviously not as influential At least that's how I understood it.
  - kbenson 10y ago
    Sure, and that's the general idea I got too. My response was really meant to outline that there wasn't much concrete to discuss there, but I think there could be. For example, are we using bad as synonymous for illegal, or are we extending it to include non-illegal but generally frowned upon (at least the those that frequent here) behavior, such as issues to do with privacy or strong-arm tactics? Additionally, to cut through the media and perception of behavior, it would be interesting to explore what percentage of the company, by employee count, division, revenue or profit, has been party to the bad behavior we're talking about, and how high in the company structure were they? Put another way, I think they are definitely very interesting to look at, but I'm not sure whether they are as relevant to look at in a discussion about bad corporate behavior without exploring some of these topics. As such, I'm just doing my best to try to entice people into what I think is a more interesting conversation in this sub-thread. :)
    - neumann 10y ago
      Then make an argument for it. If you want to do your best, then don't try to lure the discussion in a different direction with semantics, random questions and flashcards, just state a clear point of view and it will become the starting point of the debate if others agree or disagree.
      - kbenson 10y ago
        Not all discussions require you have a fully formed opinion about a topic. Arguments do (or at least should), but I'm not trying to argue, I'm trying to discuss. Not everything has to be an argument or debate, but a discussion may contain one or more of those. More succinctly, I'm not sure what the best way to handle the questions I posed is, but I do think those are questions worth asking. Should I have just stated that not all online advertising is bad? Maybe it is all bad, and someone can make a cogent case for that. If it's not all bad, I think it's important to consider how much bad behavior each company is responsible for, either in total or relative to other behavior. There are a lot of unknowns, but I think one extremely important point is that each of these unknowns weakens the absolutist and unsubstantiated statements the parent of that comment was putting forth. You don't have to show evidence to weaken an unsubstantiated statement, you can just show how it wasn't supported through data or critical thinking.
- cortesoft 10y ago
  All advertising is not bad, but the best part of advertising is the signaling aspect of it. Targeted advertising breaks that part of advertising: http://zgp.org/targeted-advertising-considered-harmful/ http://zgp.org/targeted-advertising-considered-harmful/ Facebook's entire pitch to advertisers is its ability to target ads, so I do think they are bad for the market.
TeMPOraL 10y ago
> Google now spends more money lobbying the government than any other corporation (1) including GE, Exxon, etc, etc. Didn't realize that, thanks. I wonder where that money goes though; I don't see any big successes in fighting with MAFIAA over not screwing up the Internet.

by aresant 10y ago

kbenson 10y ago

I'm pretty sure I understand your point, but you're going about it in a way that makes it hard to have a useful conversation. You've essentially said "online advertising is bad, because I say so, and these companies are big and they do it, so you should be worried about them." Is all advertising bad? What makes advertising bad? To what degree do these companies participate in that behavior? Is all lobbying bad? Should we assume them lobbying is bad because it exists? Is the total dollars spent lobbying the right value to look at? Perhaps lobbying dollars per revenue, pre profit, or per employee is a more important metric? I would love to discuss any one of these topics, but your comment is too vague on any details to be able to start from any useful point, so I've resorted to asking for clarification.

TeMPOraL 10y ago
I think the GP's points in the comment you replied to are basically: - advertising in general is a "a murky and often slimy place" - Google and Facebook are two behemots, who live in and out of that "murky place" - given their side, influence over public life (as evidenced by lobbying efforts, besides the usual things), and "past propensity for bad behavior" (as the GP tried to evidence with some examples), they're much more interesting to look at than some random startup that's obviously evil, but also obviously not as influential At least that's how I understood it.
- kbenson 10y ago
  Sure, and that's the general idea I got too. My response was really meant to outline that there wasn't much concrete to discuss there, but I think there could be. For example, are we using bad as synonymous for illegal, or are we extending it to include non-illegal but generally frowned upon (at least the those that frequent here) behavior, such as issues to do with privacy or strong-arm tactics? Additionally, to cut through the media and perception of behavior, it would be interesting to explore what percentage of the company, by employee count, division, revenue or profit, has been party to the bad behavior we're talking about, and how high in the company structure were they? Put another way, I think they are definitely very interesting to look at, but I'm not sure whether they are as relevant to look at in a discussion about bad corporate behavior without exploring some of these topics. As such, I'm just doing my best to try to entice people into what I think is a more interesting conversation in this sub-thread. :)
  - neumann 10y ago
    Then make an argument for it. If you want to do your best, then don't try to lure the discussion in a different direction with semantics, random questions and flashcards, just state a clear point of view and it will become the starting point of the debate if others agree or disagree.
    - kbenson 10y ago
      Not all discussions require you have a fully formed opinion about a topic. Arguments do (or at least should), but I'm not trying to argue, I'm trying to discuss. Not everything has to be an argument or debate, but a discussion may contain one or more of those. More succinctly, I'm not sure what the best way to handle the questions I posed is, but I do think those are questions worth asking. Should I have just stated that not all online advertising is bad? Maybe it is all bad, and someone can make a cogent case for that. If it's not all bad, I think it's important to consider how much bad behavior each company is responsible for, either in total or relative to other behavior. There are a lot of unknowns, but I think one extremely important point is that each of these unknowns weakens the absolutist and unsubstantiated statements the parent of that comment was putting forth. You don't have to show evidence to weaken an unsubstantiated statement, you can just show how it wasn't supported through data or critical thinking.
cortesoft 10y ago
All advertising is not bad, but the best part of advertising is the signaling aspect of it. Targeted advertising breaks that part of advertising: http://zgp.org/targeted-advertising-considered-harmful/ http://zgp.org/targeted-advertising-considered-harmful/ Facebook's entire pitch to advertisers is its ability to target ads, so I do think they are bad for the market.

TeMPOraL 10y ago

> Google now spends more money lobbying the government than any other corporation (1) including GE, Exxon, etc, etc. Didn't realize that, thanks. I wonder where that money goes though; I don't see any big successes in fighting with MAFIAA over not screwing up the Internet.