3 ms·
> Social media and ad tech are currently intertwined. Facebook and Twitter are both two large players who are both ad tech and social media based. Google was un
by darawk 8y ago
> Social media and ad tech are currently intertwined. Facebook and Twitter are both two large players who are both ad tech and social media based. Google was until recently, and that was after years of failure
Social media was never an important part of Google's business.
> Can you name another large social media company who doesn't make money off of ad tech?
Wrong set containment. Yes, social media functions on ad tech. Bullets function on momentum. So what? Ad tech does a lot of things, social media is just one of many, many things it is used for. You are decrying ad tech as 'destroying the world', by pointing at a sliver of its use cases. You're not upset with ad tech, you're upset with social media.
> You were responding to the well known phrase "destroying the world" as if it was physically tearing the earth apart, when it's been a phrase for destroying the currently accepted social norms since at least the 90s when I first heard it in popular media.
Erm, no. I was using the phrase exactly how you are. My question, as you went back and reviewed, is whether or not the ONLY thing that ad tech is doing is destroying the world? I didn't even object to the silly insinuation that it was in fact, doing so.
> If you want to have a discussion stop being disengenous about your arguments
I'm not being disingenuous, you just need to work on your reading comprehension.
> Edit: I went and reviewed the thread. You asked "You think that all tech is doing is destroying society?". When I said "Yes", you asked for the physics of how it was destroying the world. Please stop moving the goal posts
I didn't ask if it was destroying the world. I asked if all it was doing was destroying the world. You still haven't answered the physics question, either. Ad tech is a business model for social media.
If you want to tar 'ad tech' with the sins of social media, then you need to assert that social media can only exist because of ad tech, and that the other things enabled by ad tech (e.g. google search) would be worth giving up in exchange for eliminating social media. Otherwise you're just saying "Bullets rely on momentum and bullets kill people! Therefore momentum is bad!".
- lovich 8y agoDude, your exact post is >How, exactly? Explain the physics of that to me. How is ad tech destroying the world? And now your telling me >I didn't ask if it was destroying the world Was some critical word here deleted by autocorrect? Because those you explicitly asked how it was destroying the world in the text that is in this thread
- darawk 8y agoRead the original post. I pretty clearly articulated what I was asking. You're being disingenuous, now.
- lovich 8y agoYou asked how it was destroying the world, and then said you didn't ask that. I am actually trying to understand you, but cannot see what you mean when these statements can't both be true
- darawk 8y agoI asked if all it was doing was destroying the world. Then, in a follow-up, I asked you to explain the physics of how it was destroying the world. The emphasis being on the word 'how' in that question. I didn't mean the literal physics in the sense of tearing the earth apart - I meant the process by which it was eroding culture, community, values, etc. I think that there is a decently strong case to be made that social media, especially certain forms of social media, are in fact doing those things. I think there is a case to be made that advertising generally has helped that along, by allowing social media services to be free for users. I don't really see the case that 'ad tech' has had much to do with that, other than by optimizing the ads seen to make the companies marginally more profitable.