5 ms·

Really disappointed in this comment. Based on some nitpicking which isn't even correct [1], you're dismissing the entire article. Google's role in spreading con

Really disappointed in this comment. Based on some nitpicking which isn't even correct [1], you're dismissing the entire article. Google's role in spreading conspiracy and hate is serious stuff, and given you're a googler, fairly prominent on HN, and from my past interactions and opinions of you, I expected much better than this. [1] Not to get into the semantics of this, but when you say "when Google closed DoubleClick, he was " Product Management Director for Ad Serving, reporting to Susan Wojcicki, VP of Product Management."", that does not contradict text you quoted from the article. So the only claim you have is that the article called him an SVP for time when he was a VP.

DannyBee 7y ago
It's not nitpicking. I spent a little time after I wrote this fact checking more, and i didn't edit to include the other clearly wrong facts in this article as a way of being nice to the author. Also, because i won't have a lot of time to be on HN today, and people take no response as a sign of "no good argument" instead of "not gonna spend all my time on a forum". There are plenty of issues here to go around here. Go, try to verify facts yourself. [1] This is wrong. "Mohan then served as SVP of display and video ads for Google for 7 years, " Then, as in, the 7 years after the doubleclick acquisition. That is wrong. He was not a VP, SVP, or in charge of display and video ads. He was in charge of one thing for a while, got promoted, and 7 years later, ended up SVP as both. This shit matters. You are trying to argue essentially they could have just deleted this paragraph. Which I doubt. They are trying to make the point that this person has been a super senior person who has been doing this role a long time who should know better, and they simply haven't been. If they want to make a correct and weaker argument, awesome, they are welcome to do that. You don't get to just gloss over it. Especially when taking other people to task for not apparently knowing something.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- tropdrop 7y ago
  I'm going to quote the facts you provided earlier: When Google closed DoubleClick, he was " Product Management Director for Ad Serving, reporting to Susan Wojcicki, VP of Product Management." She made no claims about what position he had at DoubleClick. She just said "Mohan first began working in the internet ad industry in 1997 at DoubleClick." This is not an error. Then, you said: "He was promoted to VP in 2009, and SVP in late 2015. I'm too lazy to look up when the other job titles switched." Meaning, that you correctly point out she should have said "Mohan first served as VP, then SVP of display and video ads for Google for 7 years." Instead, she said "Mohan then served as SVP of display and video ads for Google for 7 years" So, that is 1 minor, incorrect detail in the article that you've identified - an extra "S" onto "VP". What are some of the other "clearly wrong facts" that we should just trust (appeal to authority?) you spotted? If you have no time and are "too lazy," as you say, why choose to spend your time attacking the most minor detail instead of the most egregious and appalling incorrect fact? Seems to me like you couldn't find much else wrong with the article.

DannyBee 7y ago

It's not nitpicking. I spent a little time after I wrote this fact checking more, and i didn't edit to include the other clearly wrong facts in this article as a way of being nice to the author. Also, because i won't have a lot of time to be on HN today, and people take no response as a sign of "no good argument" instead of "not gonna spend all my time on a forum". There are plenty of issues here to go around here. Go, try to verify facts yourself. [1] This is wrong. "Mohan then served as SVP of display and video ads for Google for 7 years, " Then, as in, the 7 years after the doubleclick acquisition. That is wrong. He was not a VP, SVP, or in charge of display and video ads. He was in charge of one thing for a while, got promoted, and 7 years later, ended up SVP as both. This shit matters. You are trying to argue essentially they could have just deleted this paragraph. Which I doubt. They are trying to make the point that this person has been a super senior person who has been doing this role a long time who should know better, and they simply haven't been. If they want to make a correct and weaker argument, awesome, they are welcome to do that. You don't get to just gloss over it. Especially when taking other people to task for not apparently knowing something.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
tropdrop 7y ago
I'm going to quote the facts you provided earlier: When Google closed DoubleClick, he was " Product Management Director for Ad Serving, reporting to Susan Wojcicki, VP of Product Management." She made no claims about what position he had at DoubleClick. She just said "Mohan first began working in the internet ad industry in 1997 at DoubleClick." This is not an error. Then, you said: "He was promoted to VP in 2009, and SVP in late 2015. I'm too lazy to look up when the other job titles switched." Meaning, that you correctly point out she should have said "Mohan first served as VP, then SVP of display and video ads for Google for 7 years." Instead, she said "Mohan then served as SVP of display and video ads for Google for 7 years" So, that is 1 minor, incorrect detail in the article that you've identified - an extra "S" onto "VP". What are some of the other "clearly wrong facts" that we should just trust (appeal to authority?) you spotted? If you have no time and are "too lazy," as you say, why choose to spend your time attacking the most minor detail instead of the most egregious and appalling incorrect fact? Seems to me like you couldn't find much else wrong with the article.