4 ms·

Could you explain what you think is good about an advertising company becoming the truth squad?

by ksk 10y ago

burkaman 10y ago
As I said, it's not good if they're "the truth squad", but it's unavoidable for them to be "a truth squad". I think Google Search is a net benefit to society even if it's run by an advertising company, and its entire purpose is to filter information. It cannot function without being a truth squad.
- ksk 10y ago
  >I think Google Search is a net benefit to society even if it's run by an advertising company, and its entire purpose is to filter information. Whenever you type a search query, the first thing Google does is ask to track your location. When they finally display the results, greater than 50% of the page is "for sale", so to speak. That, I would argue, is not the sign of a company who is interested in giving you accurate results. They are more interested in pushing products, to get you to buy something. That would make sense for a company like Amazon, but with Amazon, there is no pretense. On top of that, their primary means of filtering information is using signals influenced heavily by either paid actors or lay persons clicking on results. If Google themselves conducted an objective inquiry, they would have to shed tons of advertisers because a lot of advertising is inherently deceptive. >I think Google Search is a net benefit to society even if it's run by an advertising company I think the opposite. Its hard to click on any Google result and not find a website that is plastered with Google ads. That certainly is not entirely Google's fault (although I sometimes wonder if they rank pages with Google ads higher than non-Google ads) but they've shown to the industry that you can make billions of dollars by pimping out user data to advertisers. People get up in arms when the Uber app tracks your location after you close it, meanwhile the majority of android phones are tracking every aspect of your life. FWIW: I have many positive things to say about Google too, but I don't believe in fake neutrality where you're forced to say something nice when you criticize something.
  - burkaman 10y ago
    You're arguing that Google should be a better arbiter, and I agree. What I disagreed with is the idea that they shouldn't be an arbiter at all, because I don't think that's possible.
    - ksk 10y ago
      Not really. I don't want a better fox guarding the hen-house. I don't want it to be a fox in the first place. Heck even Wikipedia with all of its flaws would be a better arbiter. Google wants to put the responsibility of evaluating an advertisement onto its users, if they are so concerned about erroneous search results, they should first put a fact-check box next to their ads. Adopting a hands-off strategy when it comes to their revenue and a hands-on strategy when it comes to their perceived ideology is hypocritical at best.

Could you explain what you think is good about an advertising company becoming the truth squad?

by ksk 10y ago

Could you explain what you think is good about an advertising company becoming the truth squad?

As I said, it's not good if they're "the truth squad", but it's unavoidable for them to be "a truth squad". I think Google Search is a net benefit to society even if it's run by an advertising company, and its entire purpose is to filter information. It cannot function without being a truth squad.

ksk 10y ago
>I think Google Search is a net benefit to society even if it's run by an advertising company, and its entire purpose is to filter information. Whenever you type a search query, the first thing Google does is ask to track your location. When they finally display the results, greater than 50% of the page is "for sale", so to speak. That, I would argue, is not the sign of a company who is interested in giving you accurate results. They are more interested in pushing products, to get you to buy something. That would make sense for a company like Amazon, but with Amazon, there is no pretense. On top of that, their primary means of filtering information is using signals influenced heavily by either paid actors or lay persons clicking on results. If Google themselves conducted an objective inquiry, they would have to shed tons of advertisers because a lot of advertising is inherently deceptive. >I think Google Search is a net benefit to society even if it's run by an advertising company I think the opposite. Its hard to click on any Google result and not find a website that is plastered with Google ads. That certainly is not entirely Google's fault (although I sometimes wonder if they rank pages with Google ads higher than non-Google ads) but they've shown to the industry that you can make billions of dollars by pimping out user data to advertisers. People get up in arms when the Uber app tracks your location after you close it, meanwhile the majority of android phones are tracking every aspect of your life. FWIW: I have many positive things to say about Google too, but I don't believe in fake neutrality where you're forced to say something nice when you criticize something.
- burkaman 10y ago
  You're arguing that Google should be a better arbiter, and I agree. What I disagreed with is the idea that they shouldn't be an arbiter at all, because I don't think that's possible.
  - ksk 10y ago
    Not really. I don't want a better fox guarding the hen-house. I don't want it to be a fox in the first place. Heck even Wikipedia with all of its flaws would be a better arbiter. Google wants to put the responsibility of evaluating an advertisement onto its users, if they are so concerned about erroneous search results, they should first put a fact-check box next to their ads. Adopting a hands-off strategy when it comes to their revenue and a hands-on strategy when it comes to their perceived ideology is hypocritical at best.