5 ms·

> And, if your job is to get people to click on ads, or other socially detrimental (forget unnecessary) things, you, too, have a bullshit job. What? In the la

> And, if your job is to get people to click on ads, or other socially detrimental (forget unnecessary) things, you, too, have a bullshit job. What? In the last 10-15 years so many people have been able to start their own businesses, passion projects and venture into new areas just because of Facebook and Google ads. I have jeweler friends, cloth makers, leatherworkers, people making cakes at home — all of which get their clients on Instagram and other social networks. Also: therapists, astrologists (yes, I'm not a fan, but it's still an occupation), gaming dice makers, photographers, caterers, limo drivers, DJs, hair stylists... And those are just people I personally know that I could remember from the top of my head! The engineers that "make people click on ads" did it. They enabled more small-scale commerce to compete with the giants, gave a lot of people an opportunity to earn a living doing what they love. Without this "bullshit jobs" all these industries would still have been dominated by centralised gatekeeping institutions that have a budget to advertise in print media, radio, TV and billboards. Now, you can get your first customers with a $10 budget. If there is such a thing as "making a world a better place", this is it. There are many jobs that feel like "bullshits jobs" because you don't get to have personal interaction with the person whose life you're improving: you work in a giant system, and the cause-and-effect link between your work and their life is not close. But it doesn't mean that it's not there.

pmiller2 6y ago
Do you really think that cloth makers, leatherworkers, bakers, therapists, astrologists, dice makers, photographers, limo drivers, DJs, hair stylists, etc. can't exist without Facebook ads? Obviously they can. In fact, most of these occupations you mention function on word of mouth, anyway. Sorry. Getting people to click on ads is still bullshit. The harm Facebook has done to society, especially over the past 5 years, completely outweighs the fact that someone you know used it to boost their astrology business.
- golergka 6y ago
  > Do you really think that cloth makers, leatherworkers, bakers, therapists, astrologists, dice makers, photographers, limo drivers, DJs, hair stylists, etc. can't exist without Facebook ads? That's a scarecrow: I've never made such claim, it's just something that is easy for you to disprove. These professions obviously existed before. But now the barrier to reach their audience had become significantly lower, and is not tied to a centralised institutions or companies.
  - pmiller2 6y ago
    Then, why do you ascribe value to Facebook and its ads for enabling the people you know to enter those occupations? That was literally your point, wasn't it? You just told me I could do the same thing, and get started by spending $10 to get my first client, right? Or am I misreading?
    - golergka 6y ago
      Because lowering those barriers is what enabled the people I know to enter those occupations. I have to admit, I'm really confused by your question: are you under an impression that these professions either don't exist at all, or exist in one immutable state and cannot be democratised? This is not a binary dichotomy between two state. It's a continuum, and while Google and Facebook didn't create those occupations, they still have done a huge deal to improve them. There's no contradiction here.
      - pmiller2 6y ago
        No. You are claiming that Facebook ads are a mechanism that lowers those barriers. I claim the barrier isn't that big to begin with for most of them (photographer, baker, astrologer, limo driver), and that, even if some of the others benefit from said ads [0], that the harm Facebook has created outweighs that benefit. Nay, this is the opposite of making the world a better place. Shame on thee, ye supposed best and brightest, ye best minds of my generation, destroyed by madness, who spend your days trying to get 1% more people to click on an ad. --- [0]: Which I actually doubt -- the internet as a whole is what lowers the barriers, not Facebook ads per se.
        golergka 6y ago
        > I claim the barrier isn't that big to begin with for most of them Can you kindly back this claim up? I already brought forth a comparison between traditional and internet advertisement that you have not disproved. How would you get your customers for your one-person business without internet ads? > the harm Facebook has created You keep claiming it, and yet I'm to see any examples of that harm. Internet, including Facebook and Youtube enabled wider political discourse that existed before, all around the globe. If you happen to dislike some of that political discourse, then your problem is with other people's political opinions, not with the medium that they choose to exchange it. It's like being mad at a printing press because you don't like what's written in the paper. > the internet as a whole is what lowers the barriers, not Facebook ads per se. What is the internet if not the websites hosted on it? Facebook IS a part of the internet, so distinction between it and the internet "as a whole" is quite meaningless here. All properties that Facebook and Google have that we are discussing, are logical consequences of the internet. If it would happen to be Altavista and Livejournal, we would still have a pretty similar conversation about the very same software engineers working to optimise CTRs.

pmiller2 6y ago

Do you really think that cloth makers, leatherworkers, bakers, therapists, astrologists, dice makers, photographers, limo drivers, DJs, hair stylists, etc. can't exist without Facebook ads? Obviously they can. In fact, most of these occupations you mention function on word of mouth, anyway. Sorry. Getting people to click on ads is still bullshit. The harm Facebook has done to society, especially over the past 5 years, completely outweighs the fact that someone you know used it to boost their astrology business.

golergka 6y ago
> Do you really think that cloth makers, leatherworkers, bakers, therapists, astrologists, dice makers, photographers, limo drivers, DJs, hair stylists, etc. can't exist without Facebook ads? That's a scarecrow: I've never made such claim, it's just something that is easy for you to disprove. These professions obviously existed before. But now the barrier to reach their audience had become significantly lower, and is not tied to a centralised institutions or companies.
- pmiller2 6y ago
  Then, why do you ascribe value to Facebook and its ads for enabling the people you know to enter those occupations? That was literally your point, wasn't it? You just told me I could do the same thing, and get started by spending $10 to get my first client, right? Or am I misreading?
  - golergka 6y ago
    Because lowering those barriers is what enabled the people I know to enter those occupations. I have to admit, I'm really confused by your question: are you under an impression that these professions either don't exist at all, or exist in one immutable state and cannot be democratised? This is not a binary dichotomy between two state. It's a continuum, and while Google and Facebook didn't create those occupations, they still have done a huge deal to improve them. There's no contradiction here.
    - pmiller2 6y ago
      No. You are claiming that Facebook ads are a mechanism that lowers those barriers. I claim the barrier isn't that big to begin with for most of them (photographer, baker, astrologer, limo driver), and that, even if some of the others benefit from said ads [0], that the harm Facebook has created outweighs that benefit. Nay, this is the opposite of making the world a better place. Shame on thee, ye supposed best and brightest, ye best minds of my generation, destroyed by madness, who spend your days trying to get 1% more people to click on an ad. --- [0]: Which I actually doubt -- the internet as a whole is what lowers the barriers, not Facebook ads per se.
      - golergka 6y ago
        > I claim the barrier isn't that big to begin with for most of them Can you kindly back this claim up? I already brought forth a comparison between traditional and internet advertisement that you have not disproved. How would you get your customers for your one-person business without internet ads? > the harm Facebook has created You keep claiming it, and yet I'm to see any examples of that harm. Internet, including Facebook and Youtube enabled wider political discourse that existed before, all around the globe. If you happen to dislike some of that political discourse, then your problem is with other people's political opinions, not with the medium that they choose to exchange it. It's like being mad at a printing press because you don't like what's written in the paper. > the internet as a whole is what lowers the barriers, not Facebook ads per se. What is the internet if not the websites hosted on it? Facebook IS a part of the internet, so distinction between it and the internet "as a whole" is quite meaningless here. All properties that Facebook and Google have that we are discussing, are logical consequences of the internet. If it would happen to be Altavista and Livejournal, we would still have a pretty similar conversation about the very same software engineers working to optimise CTRs.