3 ms·

You may be assuming you know my viewpoint without me having presented it in full, but anyway I wasn't looking to argue in bad faith, I guess I just see a strong

You may be assuming you know my viewpoint without me having presented it in full, but anyway I wasn't looking to argue in bad faith, I guess I just see a strong difference between "successful company that has made money and cool products" and "added incalculable value to the world." That's a very strong statement! The parent comment was looking to weigh the problems of the ad-supported economy and the ills brought about by that described in the article against the value Google has brought to the world, and I just don't see how the two stack up, so I wanted to understand their weighting of the latter. Everyone seems keen to write haigiographies of companies that in all honesty I mostly find ... okay I guess? Could do better but they make cool stuff? I don't "hate" Google, but I do think that a company the size of Google doesn't need such zealous defenders, it needs a critical society that pushes it to do better with the crazy resources it has, and one of those things is to examine the ways in which it's basic revenue model is harmful.

ziddoap 7y ago
I didn't think you were trying to argue in bad faith, and you are correct that I had assumed you presented your full position in your initial post - my apologies. And I agree, "incalculable" makes it quite a strong statement, and I probably wouldn't have chosen that word myself. I think it's important to consider that Google is not the sole inventor, proponent, or user of advertisement. You probably aren't claiming that either, but the way your statement reads("problems of the ad-supported economy and the ills [...] against the value of Google") leads one to believe that you put those two things on equal footing. Google certainly evolved advertising, and is certainly a major player, but they aren't solely responsible. So, to weigh "Googles Good" vs. "Advertisements Ills" is hard to reconcile. "haigiographies" is a new word for me, cheers!

ziddoap 7y ago

I didn't think you were trying to argue in bad faith, and you are correct that I had assumed you presented your full position in your initial post - my apologies. And I agree, "incalculable" makes it quite a strong statement, and I probably wouldn't have chosen that word myself. I think it's important to consider that Google is not the sole inventor, proponent, or user of advertisement. You probably aren't claiming that either, but the way your statement reads("problems of the ad-supported economy and the ills [...] against the value of Google") leads one to believe that you put those two things on equal footing. Google certainly evolved advertising, and is certainly a major player, but they aren't solely responsible. So, to weigh "Googles Good" vs. "Advertisements Ills" is hard to reconcile. "haigiographies" is a new word for me, cheers!