4 ms·

I am disappointed that the author ended on a "this is bad" message for something with such clear potential for good. Instead of tearing down, why did the autho

by tbabb 7y ago

I am disappointed that the author ended on a "this is bad" message for something with such clear potential for good. Instead of tearing down, why did the author not apply the very thing he learned and use his article's influence and the power of suggestion to influence more people to use this tool positively?

philwelch 7y ago
Because the NYT has finally realized that the tech industry in general and Google in particular are direct competitors and existential threats to their business. This is also the explanation for every other hit piece the mainstream media writes about the tech industry.
- SquishyPanda23 7y ago
  I know it's comforting to think that journalists draw attention to issues with tech because we're tOtALlY dEStRoYIng ThEiR bUsSiNeSs MoDeL. But does this trope really need to be pulled out in discussing every single newspiece about tech that isn't flattering? It doesn't add anything to the conversation that hasn't been said thousands of times, and it fans the flames of anti-journalist sentiment.
  - izacus 7y ago
    It will have to be pulled out for as long as journalists keep writing these biased hit pieces to push their political agenda. Critiquing tech industry for all the wrong they do is fine. But what NYT does is target two companies and constantly writes articles that find the most negative interpretation to the point where they sometimes even invent things. Being biased and running a smear campaign against their competitor is what fans anti-journalist sentiment, not people bringing up the bias.
  - philwelch 7y ago
    > But does this trope really need to be pulled out in discussing every single newspiece about tech that isn't flattering? When it comes to dishonest hit pieces like this one, it is the only constructive comment to make. If journalists want to be respected, they should produce respectable work. TFA ain't it.
    - claudiulodro 7y ago
      This is an opinion piece by an SEO consultant.
      - philwelch 7y ago
        Publish, then.
  - repolfx 7y ago
    What's wrong with "fanning the flames of anti-journalist sentiment" exactly? If journalists aren't meeting the basic requirements society has of them, shouldn't there correctly be such sentiment? How else would journalism be motivated to self-reform?
hrobok 7y ago
"How I deprogrammed thousands of Trump supporters with this one weird trick."
- hrobok 7y ago
  "how I saved many babies with my $100 ad campaign near my local Planned Parenthood."
yo-scot-99 7y ago
I read it more as a "here's the keys to the kingdom" and referenced the redirectMethod which even has a step-by-step guide to replicate it. The author is from a search engine marketing consulting firm so it would seem to be almost against his self-interest to lay bare these tactics.
sushid 7y ago
The author's point is that although the author only used it for morally unambiguously good deeds, there are always malicious actors and those who believe that their side of argument is "good" (e.g. extreme left and right political ideologies). The author believes that there should indeed be some manual review for sensitive issues like these. What if an ad buyer bought ads for AR15s or for bulk order sleeping pills? You can argue that those buyers should be caught and tried, but the harm would be already done. The author would like more oversight from Google and those alike before malicious state actors (gasp!) and/or sick individuals use this unchecked power for bad.
- philwelch 7y ago
  > What if an ad buyer bought ads for AR15s Yeah, what if? It's a perfectly legal product in my country and people do buy and sell them online (via FFL transfers rather than directly), and the vast majority of people who own and use those rifles do so safely.

by tbabb 7y ago

philwelch 7y ago

Because the NYT has finally realized that the tech industry in general and Google in particular are direct competitors and existential threats to their business. This is also the explanation for every other hit piece the mainstream media writes about the tech industry.

SquishyPanda23 7y ago
I know it's comforting to think that journalists draw attention to issues with tech because we're tOtALlY dEStRoYIng ThEiR bUsSiNeSs MoDeL. But does this trope really need to be pulled out in discussing every single newspiece about tech that isn't flattering? It doesn't add anything to the conversation that hasn't been said thousands of times, and it fans the flames of anti-journalist sentiment.
- izacus 7y ago
  It will have to be pulled out for as long as journalists keep writing these biased hit pieces to push their political agenda. Critiquing tech industry for all the wrong they do is fine. But what NYT does is target two companies and constantly writes articles that find the most negative interpretation to the point where they sometimes even invent things. Being biased and running a smear campaign against their competitor is what fans anti-journalist sentiment, not people bringing up the bias.
- philwelch 7y ago
  > But does this trope really need to be pulled out in discussing every single newspiece about tech that isn't flattering? When it comes to dishonest hit pieces like this one, it is the only constructive comment to make. If journalists want to be respected, they should produce respectable work. TFA ain't it.
  - claudiulodro 7y ago
    This is an opinion piece by an SEO consultant.
    - philwelch 7y ago
      Publish, then.
- repolfx 7y ago
  What's wrong with "fanning the flames of anti-journalist sentiment" exactly? If journalists aren't meeting the basic requirements society has of them, shouldn't there correctly be such sentiment? How else would journalism be motivated to self-reform?

hrobok 7y ago

"How I deprogrammed thousands of Trump supporters with this one weird trick."

hrobok 7y ago
"how I saved many babies with my $100 ad campaign near my local Planned Parenthood."

yo-scot-99 7y ago

I read it more as a "here's the keys to the kingdom" and referenced the redirectMethod which even has a step-by-step guide to replicate it. The author is from a search engine marketing consulting firm so it would seem to be almost against his self-interest to lay bare these tactics.

sushid 7y ago

The author's point is that although the author only used it for morally unambiguously good deeds, there are always malicious actors and those who believe that their side of argument is "good" (e.g. extreme left and right political ideologies). The author believes that there should indeed be some manual review for sensitive issues like these. What if an ad buyer bought ads for AR15s or for bulk order sleeping pills? You can argue that those buyers should be caught and tried, but the harm would be already done. The author would like more oversight from Google and those alike before malicious state actors (gasp!) and/or sick individuals use this unchecked power for bad.

philwelch 7y ago
> What if an ad buyer bought ads for AR15s Yeah, what if? It's a perfectly legal product in my country and people do buy and sell them online (via FFL transfers rather than directly), and the vast majority of people who own and use those rifles do so safely.