3 ms·

>The money spent on this glorified PR stunt could have been used to support the original programming of the initiative’s partner organizations, like the New Yor

>The money spent on this glorified PR stunt could have been used to support the original programming of the initiative’s partner organizations, like the New York Public Library, which already offers free classes on subjects like basic computer skills, creating a resume, and social media marketing. Unlike the Google Learning Center, the NYPL won’t close up shop in five months. >Students are limited to just three classes at the learning center, a fact that is not mentioned either in Google’s promotional material or in any of the launch publicity. I remain surprised and somewhat dismayed that many people still believe any company has the best interest of the public anywhere on their priority list.

fumar 8y ago
From an outsider perspective, Patagonia appears to care about the environment. https://www.patagonia.com/the-activist-company.html https://www.patagonia.com/the-activist-company.html
- hprotagonist 8y ago
  not coincidentally, they’re privately held. and chouinard is a real weird guy in all the good ways. He’s not the CEO anymore but he’s left his mark very solidly.
- athenot 8y ago
  It comes down to alignment. Patagonia is deeply aligned with its customers' interests. Preserving the natural world which its customer base enjoys and for which they buy the company's products. That makes it an easier choice. Google profits off of its users in ways that are not aligned to their interests. They ride a fine line because users tolerate the inconvenience in exchange for the product. My rule of thumb is "follow the money". In this case, Google is a more aligned with their customers (who pay them money) than with their users (who might be or become customer of its customers). Of course, there is a nuance: Google can't alienate its users, otherwise it will lose its customers. It's serving 2 sides at a time. But when there are competing interests between the users and the customers, there is a bias towards the customers.
  - kristianc 8y ago
    > Google profits off of its users in ways that are not aligned to their interests. See this is not clear cut. Google profits off me, primarily when I click on an ad through search or through the display network. It's not clear either of these are non-aligned to my interests, or that I do all that badly out of it. If Google shows me a search ad and I click on it, generating payment for Google, it's because I've searched for the item in the first place. I've shown an interest in the product. That's not obviously _not_ aligned to my interest. At best, it's kind of orthogonal. Google's entire search value prop, bear in mind, is 'only pay for people who are interested in your product'. If I click on an ad through the Google Display Network, again it's likely because I've been on the website of the company that is retargeting me in the first place. Again, not obviously not in my interest. On the other hand, the benefits that Google provides to me as a customer are so immense in terms of search, mapping, email, organization that it's difficult to say that I don't do enormously well out of the deal. I'm putting up with a company making a profit from something that I was theoretically already interested in - in order to have an incredible service for free. For Facebook and other third party ad networks it is less obvious, as their net contribution to society is arguably much more negative. But Google, it's really not clear.
    - athenot 8y ago
      Maybe I visited a site about a product that I'm interested in, but it's not in my interest to buy it right this second. Yet in this case Google will repeatedly bring this product to the forefront of my mind, skewing my perception and my decision-making. The value proposition of advertisement is not to lay out unbiased facts to aid me in making a decision, it's to push me to purchase a product that I otherwise would not have purchased, or that I would have delayed in purchasing, for example until I properly saved for it or until I really needed it. To summarize, it's not in my best interest to pay interest on a product I'm merely interested in, as opposed to actually needing.
- bb88 8y ago
  Yes, but deep down in their heart of hearts, they still care about having an income stream -- otherwise they wouldn't exist.
  - roguecoder 8y ago
    That's not hidden, nor is it inherently in conflict with prioritizing environmental protections. The question comes to what happens when you have a choice between two priorities. It is entirely possible to be a profitable company with a profitable income stream and still turn down any income that is in conflict with more-important-to-the-company values.
    - bb88 8y ago
      Profitability is neither infinite nor guaranteed. It will be interesting to see what happens when Patagonia sees a crunch in their sales, and how much of that moral proposition that defines their company they will keep in place.
brightball 8y ago
> The money spent on this could have been used to... ...do the thing that I think the money should be spent on. I remain surprised that this line of thinking comes up so often. Why do people so often have this idea that because they want money to be spent on something, that spending it elsewhere means it's somehow being taken away from where they want it? This was front and center with the Amazon HQ2 stuff when people were up in arms about where the non-existent money that was manifested in future tax breaks to Amazon could be better spent. I don't know what is propagating this line of thinking but it's starting to seem like a real problem.
kristianc 8y ago
> I remain surprised and somewhat dismayed that many people still believe any company has the best interest of the public anywhere on their priority list. This is a bizarre meme. Companies do have lots of reasons to care what people think about them. Being socially responsible is good business in terms of brand, attracting and retaining talent, from a consumer perspective, employee engagement and beating out the competition. If customers start switching from your company to another one that is more socially responsible, that can only be bad for business.
- roguecoder 8y ago
  Also in that "still having a society to be a business in" way. Revolutions and depressions are terrible for most business.

fumar 8y ago

From an outsider perspective, Patagonia appears to care about the environment. https://www.patagonia.com/the-activist-company.html https://www.patagonia.com/the-activist-company.html

hprotagonist 8y ago
not coincidentally, they’re privately held. and chouinard is a real weird guy in all the good ways. He’s not the CEO anymore but he’s left his mark very solidly.
athenot 8y ago
It comes down to alignment. Patagonia is deeply aligned with its customers' interests. Preserving the natural world which its customer base enjoys and for which they buy the company's products. That makes it an easier choice. Google profits off of its users in ways that are not aligned to their interests. They ride a fine line because users tolerate the inconvenience in exchange for the product. My rule of thumb is "follow the money". In this case, Google is a more aligned with their customers (who pay them money) than with their users (who might be or become customer of its customers). Of course, there is a nuance: Google can't alienate its users, otherwise it will lose its customers. It's serving 2 sides at a time. But when there are competing interests between the users and the customers, there is a bias towards the customers.
- kristianc 8y ago
  > Google profits off of its users in ways that are not aligned to their interests. See this is not clear cut. Google profits off me, primarily when I click on an ad through search or through the display network. It's not clear either of these are non-aligned to my interests, or that I do all that badly out of it. If Google shows me a search ad and I click on it, generating payment for Google, it's because I've searched for the item in the first place. I've shown an interest in the product. That's not obviously _not_ aligned to my interest. At best, it's kind of orthogonal. Google's entire search value prop, bear in mind, is 'only pay for people who are interested in your product'. If I click on an ad through the Google Display Network, again it's likely because I've been on the website of the company that is retargeting me in the first place. Again, not obviously not in my interest. On the other hand, the benefits that Google provides to me as a customer are so immense in terms of search, mapping, email, organization that it's difficult to say that I don't do enormously well out of the deal. I'm putting up with a company making a profit from something that I was theoretically already interested in - in order to have an incredible service for free. For Facebook and other third party ad networks it is less obvious, as their net contribution to society is arguably much more negative. But Google, it's really not clear.
  - athenot 8y ago
    Maybe I visited a site about a product that I'm interested in, but it's not in my interest to buy it right this second. Yet in this case Google will repeatedly bring this product to the forefront of my mind, skewing my perception and my decision-making. The value proposition of advertisement is not to lay out unbiased facts to aid me in making a decision, it's to push me to purchase a product that I otherwise would not have purchased, or that I would have delayed in purchasing, for example until I properly saved for it or until I really needed it. To summarize, it's not in my best interest to pay interest on a product I'm merely interested in, as opposed to actually needing.
bb88 8y ago
Yes, but deep down in their heart of hearts, they still care about having an income stream -- otherwise they wouldn't exist.
- roguecoder 8y ago
  That's not hidden, nor is it inherently in conflict with prioritizing environmental protections. The question comes to what happens when you have a choice between two priorities. It is entirely possible to be a profitable company with a profitable income stream and still turn down any income that is in conflict with more-important-to-the-company values.
  - bb88 8y ago
    Profitability is neither infinite nor guaranteed. It will be interesting to see what happens when Patagonia sees a crunch in their sales, and how much of that moral proposition that defines their company they will keep in place.

brightball 8y ago

> The money spent on this could have been used to... ...do the thing that I think the money should be spent on. I remain surprised that this line of thinking comes up so often. Why do people so often have this idea that because they want money to be spent on something, that spending it elsewhere means it's somehow being taken away from where they want it? This was front and center with the Amazon HQ2 stuff when people were up in arms about where the non-existent money that was manifested in future tax breaks to Amazon could be better spent. I don't know what is propagating this line of thinking but it's starting to seem like a real problem.

kristianc 8y ago

> I remain surprised and somewhat dismayed that many people still believe any company has the best interest of the public anywhere on their priority list. This is a bizarre meme. Companies do have lots of reasons to care what people think about them. Being socially responsible is good business in terms of brand, attracting and retaining talent, from a consumer perspective, employee engagement and beating out the competition. If customers start switching from your company to another one that is more socially responsible, that can only be bad for business.

roguecoder 8y ago
Also in that "still having a society to be a business in" way. Revolutions and depressions are terrible for most business.