5 ms·

I'm always fearful of posting my tech nightmares on HN because so many people here work in industries that exist just to fry brains with ads. Probably most are

I'm always fearful of posting my tech nightmares on HN because so many people here work in industries that exist just to fry brains with ads. Probably most are rolling their eyes saying "We're not that evil." But somebody is thinking "Hmmm."

Teever 5y ago
I've always thought about the double-edged sword of proactively patenting garbage like this. On the one hand you prevent anyone else from using it for a period of time, but on the other hand you give them ideas that they might not have had.
- grujicd 5y ago
  If they watched Black Mirror they already have that idea. And we already know what a nightmare that would be.
- jrockway 5y ago
  I think it's a really good idea to patent evil inventions, so that nobody can ever use them. Something to consider.
  - eru 5y ago
    > [...], so that nobody can ever use them. Well, for 20 years, not forever.
    - jrockway 5y ago
      It kind of gives the lawmakers a head start. If you release some evil product today, then you're going to use all of your money to fight any regulation or legal disputes. But if the idea exists and there's only the threat of it being used, then none of those fights happen, but people will still ask their lawmakers to ban it. And they have decades to get it done. Imagine if I had patented "System for using the Internet to distribute misinformation regarding respiratory viruses, so as to maximize deaths during a pandemic." Facebook would show up later and already be illegal, and a lot less people would have died of COVID.
      - eru 5y ago
        The point in your first paragraph is plausible. I doubt the example in your second paragraph is remotely plausible. But I can see how someone might come up with a better example. Btw, violating a patent isn't illegal in the criminal sense of murder being illegal. As far as I know patents are more about civil liability, and you'd have to sue Facebook for damages, don't you? That would make doing business quite a lot more expensive for Facebook, of course. But wouldn't ban what they are doing outright.
  - dahart 5y ago
    The purpose of patents is to encourage the complete disclosure of inventions so they can be used & improved later by others (or even worked around with better inventions now), in return for temporary exclusive rights. Patenting evil inventions might be a way to advertise and accelerate the proliferation of evil ideas…
- hawski 5y ago
  https://patents.google.com/patent/US8246454?oq=8246454 https://patents.google.com/patent/US8246454?oq=8246454 look at image 10
elcapitan 5y ago
"We're not that evil. This is actually something people want!"
- gumby 5y ago
  In case elcapitan’s comment appears sarcastic: this is quite often how advertisers feel. I don’t know if it’s narcissism or a human way of justifying their actions. For humanity’s sake I hope the latter.
  - jackjeff 5y ago
    Yeah. It’s like Google explaining how they help us by having “relevant ads”. The only ad that’s relevant to me is the one that I don’t see. I must be in a minority though, considered how successful ad businesses are.
    - dahart 5y ago
      I think you’re in the majority with the rest of us. Like you I hate most ads, and I suspect most people do too. That said, one way to look at it from an advertiser’s perspective is that if you spend money on anything, then relevant ads must exist, and they will continue to try to find them. If they can’t find them, they’ll still continue to spam us with irrelevant ads because they still work a little; statistically, a few people will buy the product for every million people who see the ad. I spend money, and I even sometimes spend significant amounts of time trying to figure out what to buy when I need something I don’t know a lot about. I also spend far more time than I want to trying to ignore ads I don’t care about on the internet and YouTube, just like I used to with TV. Those are two separate time sucks, and I’d love to have ads at least be teaching me impartial information about whatever it is I’m shopping for, and help me figure out what I need. It would save me time if I could merge ad watching time with shopping research time. Google and advertisers would love that too. But the level of invasive privacy compromise that would bring would be a million times worse than the bad situation we already have, I’m not willing to accept it.
    - gumby 5y ago

Teever 5y ago

I've always thought about the double-edged sword of proactively patenting garbage like this. On the one hand you prevent anyone else from using it for a period of time, but on the other hand you give them ideas that they might not have had.

grujicd 5y ago
If they watched Black Mirror they already have that idea. And we already know what a nightmare that would be.
jrockway 5y ago
I think it's a really good idea to patent evil inventions, so that nobody can ever use them. Something to consider.
- eru 5y ago
  > [...], so that nobody can ever use them. Well, for 20 years, not forever.
  - jrockway 5y ago
    It kind of gives the lawmakers a head start. If you release some evil product today, then you're going to use all of your money to fight any regulation or legal disputes. But if the idea exists and there's only the threat of it being used, then none of those fights happen, but people will still ask their lawmakers to ban it. And they have decades to get it done. Imagine if I had patented "System for using the Internet to distribute misinformation regarding respiratory viruses, so as to maximize deaths during a pandemic." Facebook would show up later and already be illegal, and a lot less people would have died of COVID.
    - eru 5y ago
      The point in your first paragraph is plausible. I doubt the example in your second paragraph is remotely plausible. But I can see how someone might come up with a better example. Btw, violating a patent isn't illegal in the criminal sense of murder being illegal. As far as I know patents are more about civil liability, and you'd have to sue Facebook for damages, don't you? That would make doing business quite a lot more expensive for Facebook, of course. But wouldn't ban what they are doing outright.
- dahart 5y ago
  The purpose of patents is to encourage the complete disclosure of inventions so they can be used & improved later by others (or even worked around with better inventions now), in return for temporary exclusive rights. Patenting evil inventions might be a way to advertise and accelerate the proliferation of evil ideas…
hawski 5y ago
https://patents.google.com/patent/US8246454?oq=8246454 https://patents.google.com/patent/US8246454?oq=8246454 look at image 10

elcapitan 5y ago

"We're not that evil. This is actually something people want!"

gumby 5y ago
In case elcapitan’s comment appears sarcastic: this is quite often how advertisers feel. I don’t know if it’s narcissism or a human way of justifying their actions. For humanity’s sake I hope the latter.
- jackjeff 5y ago
  Yeah. It’s like Google explaining how they help us by having “relevant ads”. The only ad that’s relevant to me is the one that I don’t see. I must be in a minority though, considered how successful ad businesses are.
  - dahart 5y ago
    I think you’re in the majority with the rest of us. Like you I hate most ads, and I suspect most people do too. That said, one way to look at it from an advertiser’s perspective is that if you spend money on anything, then relevant ads must exist, and they will continue to try to find them. If they can’t find them, they’ll still continue to spam us with irrelevant ads because they still work a little; statistically, a few people will buy the product for every million people who see the ad. I spend money, and I even sometimes spend significant amounts of time trying to figure out what to buy when I need something I don’t know a lot about. I also spend far more time than I want to trying to ignore ads I don’t care about on the internet and YouTube, just like I used to with TV. Those are two separate time sucks, and I’d love to have ads at least be teaching me impartial information about whatever it is I’m shopping for, and help me figure out what I need. It would save me time if I could merge ad watching time with shopping research time. Google and advertisers would love that too. But the level of invasive privacy compromise that would bring would be a million times worse than the bad situation we already have, I’m not willing to accept it.
  - gumby 5y ago