3 ms·
> Whether they make that money by selling ads, or selling a product, or selling a subscription, or whatever else is irrelevant The OP is making the point that,
by CognitiveLens 15y ago
> Whether they make that money by selling ads, or selling a product, or selling a subscription, or whatever else is irrelevant
The OP is making the point that, for him, the method of making money is entirely relevant to his sense of fulfillment when working for a company. He does not make the claim that a business cannot be doing lots of other cool things alongside making money - in fact, he points out that Google and Twitter and Facebook are indeed achieving fulfilling goals, but he objects to the income stream and therefore would not feel fulfilled by working for those companies. That's completely fair.
Substituting the claim of the OP about "serving ads" with "making money" distorts the entire message, and of course makes it sound ridiculous.
- dpark 15y agoThen he should just say "I am unwilling to work for a company that sells ads", rather than trying to say that none of Google's work is meaningful simply because they sell ads. I don't believe substituting "serving ads" with "making money" distorts the message at all. I think it merely highlights how immature his stance is. He stated quite plainly that Twitter isn't about connecting people, that Facebook isn't about sharing links, because they are about "serving ads". The implication here is that a company which sells ads cannot do anything, which is ridiculous. He set up a strawman.