6 ms·

Really? Really? What harm are they actually causing?

by dantheman 6y ago

cblconfederate 6y ago
Do I really need to enumerate?
- pb7 6y ago
  Yes. Also, please share what benefit tobacco companies provide to society.
  - AlexandrB 6y ago
    The same benefit that all of the FAANG companies provide: "value to shareholders". I thought this was the ultimate capitalist notion of "benefit"?
  - cblconfederate 6y ago
    There are tons of articles written on the benefits and evils caused by these companies. To claim that they have no drawbacks because they have been a net benefit overall is preposterous. Tobacco may be a net detriment, but they do provide jobs, and profits of course, everyone loves profits and stocks going up! You 'll notice from the comments here that views on big tech have changed a lot and they are no longer placed in a pedestal as they used to be. Some commenters seem surprised by this, probably because they live in the SV bubble.
    - pb7 6y ago
      >Tobacco may be a net detriment, but they do provide jobs, and profits of course, everyone loves profits and stocks going up! That has nothing to do with tobacco. Jobs can just as easily be provided in any other industry. What does tobacco provide to society? As for the rest of your comment, on the contrary, I find this negative tech sentiment only present on Hacker News and similar tech-heavy forums. Regular people outside of tech hubs couldn't care less except for what the media is feeding them (no derogation, I am similarly fed by the media in industries I am not familiar with).
      - cblconfederate 6y ago
        > Jobs can just as easily be provided in any other industry. What do pervasive ads provide to society? What does instagram? How did the obliteration of newspapers help? Tobacco provides stimulation to nicotinic acetylcholine receptors which increase alertness, heart rate, reaction times etc. Some people highly value this, even though overall it s an unhealthy habit. It's not black or white. You see more complaints here because there are a lot of IT professionals who have seen how these things work. Average folk dont know much beyond what with Big Tech's marketing departments spew. There's also a lot of pushback from mainstream press, which was to be expected since BigTech took all their ad incomes.
        pb7 6y ago
        Ads provide something to other companies, but I would agree not much to society at large. But that's because ads are the monetization -- their purpose isn't to provide value to the end users. It's like asking, what value does taking money from customers provide them? Well, the product/service they paid for. Ads monetize all sorts of useful products and services at scale like information, communication, and entertainment. Google being free means someone that wouldn't be able to afford a $25/mo (or way more) subscription gets equally good access to information. YouTube being free means people have access to entertainment created by independent creators who can be compensated for their efforts without being a part of a large organization. Facebook et al. being free means everyone can be connected without any one person being left out because they can't afford it. I think you know all of these things and we're basically debating on where the balance is between value from service and the cost of privacy, etc.
MajorBee 6y ago
Gradual social/political destabilization, caused at least in part and certainly accelerated by social media (FB/Twitter) and pervasive adtech in personal life (led by Google) seem to be the big ones here. Arguably as bad as Big Tobacco or Big Oil.
- chillacy 6y ago
  Most of the political destabilization (in america) has been going on before social media: https://www.wired.com/story/why-are-we-polarized-dont-blame-social-media-ezra-klein/ https://www.wired.com/story/why-are-we-polarized-dont-blame-... > EK: ... The core story of the book is that over the past 50 years, the country’s dominant political coalitions have sorted by ideology, race, religion, geography, psychology, consumer behavior, and cultural preferences. This has, in turn, kicked off a series of feedback loops in which political institutions ... adopt more polarized strategies to both respond and appeal to a more polarized audience, which further polarizes the audience, which further polarizes the institutions, which further polarizes the audience, and so on. > Social media is one of those institutions, and in my view, is clearly a polarization accelerant. In the coming years it may prove a primary driver. But the bulk of the run-up in American party polarization predates social media, which means social media isn’t core to the story.

Really? Really? What harm are they actually causing?

cblconfederate 6y ago

Do I really need to enumerate?

pb7 6y ago
Yes. Also, please share what benefit tobacco companies provide to society.
- AlexandrB 6y ago
  The same benefit that all of the FAANG companies provide: "value to shareholders". I thought this was the ultimate capitalist notion of "benefit"?
- cblconfederate 6y ago
  There are tons of articles written on the benefits and evils caused by these companies. To claim that they have no drawbacks because they have been a net benefit overall is preposterous. Tobacco may be a net detriment, but they do provide jobs, and profits of course, everyone loves profits and stocks going up! You 'll notice from the comments here that views on big tech have changed a lot and they are no longer placed in a pedestal as they used to be. Some commenters seem surprised by this, probably because they live in the SV bubble.
  - pb7 6y ago
    >Tobacco may be a net detriment, but they do provide jobs, and profits of course, everyone loves profits and stocks going up! That has nothing to do with tobacco. Jobs can just as easily be provided in any other industry. What does tobacco provide to society? As for the rest of your comment, on the contrary, I find this negative tech sentiment only present on Hacker News and similar tech-heavy forums. Regular people outside of tech hubs couldn't care less except for what the media is feeding them (no derogation, I am similarly fed by the media in industries I am not familiar with).
    - cblconfederate 6y ago
      > Jobs can just as easily be provided in any other industry. What do pervasive ads provide to society? What does instagram? How did the obliteration of newspapers help? Tobacco provides stimulation to nicotinic acetylcholine receptors which increase alertness, heart rate, reaction times etc. Some people highly value this, even though overall it s an unhealthy habit. It's not black or white. You see more complaints here because there are a lot of IT professionals who have seen how these things work. Average folk dont know much beyond what with Big Tech's marketing departments spew. There's also a lot of pushback from mainstream press, which was to be expected since BigTech took all their ad incomes.
      - pb7 6y ago
        Ads provide something to other companies, but I would agree not much to society at large. But that's because ads are the monetization -- their purpose isn't to provide value to the end users. It's like asking, what value does taking money from customers provide them? Well, the product/service they paid for. Ads monetize all sorts of useful products and services at scale like information, communication, and entertainment. Google being free means someone that wouldn't be able to afford a $25/mo (or way more) subscription gets equally good access to information. YouTube being free means people have access to entertainment created by independent creators who can be compensated for their efforts without being a part of a large organization. Facebook et al. being free means everyone can be connected without any one person being left out because they can't afford it. I think you know all of these things and we're basically debating on where the balance is between value from service and the cost of privacy, etc.

MajorBee 6y ago

Gradual social/political destabilization, caused at least in part and certainly accelerated by social media (FB/Twitter) and pervasive adtech in personal life (led by Google) seem to be the big ones here. Arguably as bad as Big Tobacco or Big Oil.

chillacy 6y ago
Most of the political destabilization (in america) has been going on before social media: https://www.wired.com/story/why-are-we-polarized-dont-blame-social-media-ezra-klein/ https://www.wired.com/story/why-are-we-polarized-dont-blame-... > EK: ... The core story of the book is that over the past 50 years, the country’s dominant political coalitions have sorted by ideology, race, religion, geography, psychology, consumer behavior, and cultural preferences. This has, in turn, kicked off a series of feedback loops in which political institutions ... adopt more polarized strategies to both respond and appeal to a more polarized audience, which further polarizes the audience, which further polarizes the institutions, which further polarizes the audience, and so on. > Social media is one of those institutions, and in my view, is clearly a polarization accelerant. In the coming years it may prove a primary driver. But the bulk of the run-up in American party polarization predates social media, which means social media isn’t core to the story.