3 ms·
There’s probably truth to that but I think it stems from what seems to be a quite commonly held opinion that ads are hostile to humans. They clutter our browsin
by SirSourdough 5y ago
There’s probably truth to that but I think it stems from what seems to be a quite commonly held opinion that ads are hostile to humans. They clutter our browsing and viewing experiences, not to mention our physical world. They use malicious tactics to steal our attention from what we would otherwise choose for ourselves. And the industry spends vast physical and intellectual resources which could almost certainly be spent in a more beneficial / less societally harmful way.
So it’s hardly a surprise to me that people see it as ok for Google to use their information to provide them a service like routing, but disapprove of their using that data to enable an industry they see as harmful. I don’t think the problem is exclusively that Google makes money but rather that they make money as the kingpin of an industry most people feel negatively impacts their lives.
- Nasrudith 5y agoI think you are deep in a bubble if you believe that thinking ads are harmful is a common viewpoint in general instead of in niche. You won't see newspapers calling ads in general that way for one, they have to add targetted to not look like obvious flaming hypocrites. The opposing view would call "harmful" downright hysterical in the same way teens would nigh universally roll eyes at Tipper Gore's claims of music as harmful or Jack Chick's anything. As for claims that the effort and money at Google could be spent in less harmful ways? No it couldn't, not the money they received - except as operating as a take the money and run scam which hardly qualifies as less harm as an instant zeroing of account values. The "harm" is why they got the money in the first place. You have to give the people paying money what they want to keep receiving money to get what you need to fulfill the demands.