3 ms·

I don’t accept that these people think they are helping create an open web. I think they’re trying to make their stock options worth more and appease their boss

I don’t accept that these people think they are helping create an open web. I think they’re trying to make their stock options worth more and appease their bosses.

fauigerzigerk 7y ago
I don't know Mr Vincent or anyone else at Google, but it seems unrealistic to assume that no one at Google could possibly believe that advertising is helping not hurting the open Web. Stock options and bosses with different incentives are available at other employers as well.
- malvosenior 7y ago
  I don’t think anyone could be naive enough to believe ads help the open web. > Stock options and bosses with different incentives are available at other employers as well. Most other employers don’t have a near monopoly on the web browser market.
  - fauigerzigerk 7y ago
    >I don’t think anyone could be naive enough to believe ads help the open web I don't think assuming bad faith with absolute certainty is a productive form of debate. [Edit]: As a matter of fact, I don't believe that advertising is entirely replaceable as a funding mechanism for the open web at this point in time. That doesn't mean we have to accept all its excesses without resistance. >Most other employers don’t have a near monopoly on the web browser market. A near monopoly is not a prerequisite for an employee to make a lot of money somewhere else, especially not for someone in a PR role like "advocate".
    - malvosenior 7y ago
      > I don't think assuming bad faith with absolute certainty is a productive form of debate. It’s not a debate though, Google is removing these user friendly features and sprinkling some marketing speak over their actions. It’s right to call them out on that. Also, if your job is to be the face of that marketing speak, you should expect people to question what you say. [edit] Funding and openness are tangential. A system need not be profitable to be open. Look at open source.
      - fauigerzigerk 7y ago
        >Funding and openness are tangential I don't think open source is a viable solution for all currently ad funded services. Some services cost a lot of money to run and many indirect funding sources come with their own downsides. Open source projects are often leveraged by some of the largest corporations for their own strategic purposes that don't necessarily help openness. But my original point was simply that this is a non-trivial debate in which all sorts of opinions can be honestly held.

I don’t accept that these people think they are helping create an open web. I think they’re trying to make their stock options worth more and appease their bosses.

fauigerzigerk 7y ago

I don't know Mr Vincent or anyone else at Google, but it seems unrealistic to assume that no one at Google could possibly believe that advertising is helping not hurting the open Web. Stock options and bosses with different incentives are available at other employers as well.

malvosenior 7y ago
I don’t think anyone could be naive enough to believe ads help the open web. > Stock options and bosses with different incentives are available at other employers as well. Most other employers don’t have a near monopoly on the web browser market.
- fauigerzigerk 7y ago
  >I don’t think anyone could be naive enough to believe ads help the open web I don't think assuming bad faith with absolute certainty is a productive form of debate. [Edit]: As a matter of fact, I don't believe that advertising is entirely replaceable as a funding mechanism for the open web at this point in time. That doesn't mean we have to accept all its excesses without resistance. >Most other employers don’t have a near monopoly on the web browser market. A near monopoly is not a prerequisite for an employee to make a lot of money somewhere else, especially not for someone in a PR role like "advocate".
  - malvosenior 7y ago
    > I don't think assuming bad faith with absolute certainty is a productive form of debate. It’s not a debate though, Google is removing these user friendly features and sprinkling some marketing speak over their actions. It’s right to call them out on that. Also, if your job is to be the face of that marketing speak, you should expect people to question what you say. [edit] Funding and openness are tangential. A system need not be profitable to be open. Look at open source.
    - fauigerzigerk 7y ago
      >Funding and openness are tangential I don't think open source is a viable solution for all currently ad funded services. Some services cost a lot of money to run and many indirect funding sources come with their own downsides. Open source projects are often leveraged by some of the largest corporations for their own strategic purposes that don't necessarily help openness. But my original point was simply that this is a non-trivial debate in which all sorts of opinions can be honestly held.