6 ms·

This sounds a little like the incremental addiction to fossil fuels the world has developed. It's "the market" and "blame consumers" when we know damn well that

by titzer 4y ago

This sounds a little like the incremental addiction to fossil fuels the world has developed. It's "the market" and "blame consumers" when we know damn well that consumers don't choose fuel sources and consumers didn't grease the palms of legislators and regulators for more than a century.

AinderS 4y ago
You make a good point. I can see how my post could be interpreted as blaming regular consumers for the mess we're in. And while consumer apathy and ignorance disgust me, you are correct, journalists and media that are supposed to be guiding us should shoulder the majority of the blame. I would blame Google, but that's like blaming the fox for killing the hens, instead of whoever left a hole in the hen house. Edit: See my other comment (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32126390 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32126390) about this analogy "excusing" Google/the fox.
- woodruffw 4y ago
  Journalism bears some responsibility (insofar as it’s become addicted to cheap social media traffic and digital ad revenue), but I think the context doesn’t justify disproportionate blame. In particular: social media companies understood, very early on, that they could use their position to squeeze traditional media by cutting into its advertising. It was a classic industrial takeover, including the incumbent’s mockery of the newcomer until it was too late. They probably deserve some blame for not seeing how the wind was blowing, and reacting accordingly. But I would place more blame on digital ad markets and all of the perverse incentives associated with them, all of which originate somewhere in the grimy junction between VCs and traditional advertising.
- mewse 4y ago
  But the journalists too are just following the incentives that are provided to them. Don’t they deserve some of that “but that’s like blaming the fox for killing the hens, instead of whoever left a hole in the hen house” blanket pardon you’re handing out, here?
  - AinderS 4y ago
    > blanket pardon Oh that wasn't a pardon. Maybe the fox analogy was poorly chosen, since foxes are cute and have their place in the ecosystem. I should have said Google is like cancer, and media are the negligent doctor that takes too long to send you to therapy.
- tremon 4y ago
  instead of whoever left a hole in the hen house The entire world is full of holes, and always has been. We shouldn't be lauding the foxes that use every hole they find. Unethical activities should be called out, not downplayed and dismissed.
- morelisp 4y ago
  In your analogy, whatever happens to the lazy farmhand, the fox also still gets shot.
- titzer 4y ago
  I wouldn't be so quick to paint the big ad networks as natural phenomenon like foxes, that just need to eat. After all, foxes don't need to eat 23% more hens year after year for decades. Their stomachs are only so big. It's partly the atmosphere of hyper-growth--"growthism" it is sometimes called--that has given rise to this situation. And it is partly because big tech has been gaslighting us about how all this tracking and ad personalization is good for consumers--which it isn't. It benefits advertisers and ad networks, not consumers.
  - ISL 4y ago
    If you have enough chickens, the number of foxes, too, can grow exponentially with time.
    - titzer 4y ago
      I am getting confused in this whole analogy, TBH, but if chickens were clicks or ad impressions, it seems like foxes have developed an appetite for pigeons, larks, hawks, eagles, rabbits, squirrels, shrews, groundhogs, muskrats, cats, small dogs, mice, rats, and other foxes. They seem to have a bottomless pit for a stomach and are telling us that it's always been that case that foxes were the dominant life form and that we should be grateful for the services they are providing.
grog454 4y ago
> we know damn well that consumers don't choose fuel sources That's not entirely true. Where I live people have a choice of energy provider which includes much more costly "100% renewable" options. Guess how popular that choice is.
- eropple 4y ago
  You don’t say where you live, but in the United States, in addition to ‘titzer correctly says, these “100% renewable” providers that are piggybacking on the established providers’ grids are mostly a flavor of adjustable-rate scam.
- titzer 4y ago
  > people have a choice of energy provider I don't know where you live, so it's impossible to say what you actually mean. But if you are referring to the choices for electric power, these are almost certainly new developments that have been forced by legislation mandating giving consumers a choice, which is only a small walkback of the past century of promotion and even subsidizing energy producers that use fossil fuels. Energy production is a deeply non-free market. Even in recent times with the rise of solar, it's often the case where it's illegal (or sometimes merely inconvenient or uneconomical) to sell power back to the grid.

by titzer 4y ago

AinderS 4y ago

You make a good point. I can see how my post could be interpreted as blaming regular consumers for the mess we're in. And while consumer apathy and ignorance disgust me, you are correct, journalists and media that are supposed to be guiding us should shoulder the majority of the blame. I would blame Google, but that's like blaming the fox for killing the hens, instead of whoever left a hole in the hen house. Edit: See my other comment (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32126390 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32126390) about this analogy "excusing" Google/the fox.

woodruffw 4y ago
Journalism bears some responsibility (insofar as it’s become addicted to cheap social media traffic and digital ad revenue), but I think the context doesn’t justify disproportionate blame. In particular: social media companies understood, very early on, that they could use their position to squeeze traditional media by cutting into its advertising. It was a classic industrial takeover, including the incumbent’s mockery of the newcomer until it was too late. They probably deserve some blame for not seeing how the wind was blowing, and reacting accordingly. But I would place more blame on digital ad markets and all of the perverse incentives associated with them, all of which originate somewhere in the grimy junction between VCs and traditional advertising.
mewse 4y ago
But the journalists too are just following the incentives that are provided to them. Don’t they deserve some of that “but that’s like blaming the fox for killing the hens, instead of whoever left a hole in the hen house” blanket pardon you’re handing out, here?
- AinderS 4y ago
  > blanket pardon Oh that wasn't a pardon. Maybe the fox analogy was poorly chosen, since foxes are cute and have their place in the ecosystem. I should have said Google is like cancer, and media are the negligent doctor that takes too long to send you to therapy.
tremon 4y ago
instead of whoever left a hole in the hen house The entire world is full of holes, and always has been. We shouldn't be lauding the foxes that use every hole they find. Unethical activities should be called out, not downplayed and dismissed.
morelisp 4y ago
In your analogy, whatever happens to the lazy farmhand, the fox also still gets shot.
titzer 4y ago
I wouldn't be so quick to paint the big ad networks as natural phenomenon like foxes, that just need to eat. After all, foxes don't need to eat 23% more hens year after year for decades. Their stomachs are only so big. It's partly the atmosphere of hyper-growth--"growthism" it is sometimes called--that has given rise to this situation. And it is partly because big tech has been gaslighting us about how all this tracking and ad personalization is good for consumers--which it isn't. It benefits advertisers and ad networks, not consumers.
- ISL 4y ago
  If you have enough chickens, the number of foxes, too, can grow exponentially with time.
  - titzer 4y ago
    I am getting confused in this whole analogy, TBH, but if chickens were clicks or ad impressions, it seems like foxes have developed an appetite for pigeons, larks, hawks, eagles, rabbits, squirrels, shrews, groundhogs, muskrats, cats, small dogs, mice, rats, and other foxes. They seem to have a bottomless pit for a stomach and are telling us that it's always been that case that foxes were the dominant life form and that we should be grateful for the services they are providing.

grog454 4y ago

> we know damn well that consumers don't choose fuel sources That's not entirely true. Where I live people have a choice of energy provider which includes much more costly "100% renewable" options. Guess how popular that choice is.

eropple 4y ago
You don’t say where you live, but in the United States, in addition to ‘titzer correctly says, these “100% renewable” providers that are piggybacking on the established providers’ grids are mostly a flavor of adjustable-rate scam.
titzer 4y ago
> people have a choice of energy provider I don't know where you live, so it's impossible to say what you actually mean. But if you are referring to the choices for electric power, these are almost certainly new developments that have been forced by legislation mandating giving consumers a choice, which is only a small walkback of the past century of promotion and even subsidizing energy producers that use fossil fuels. Energy production is a deeply non-free market. Even in recent times with the rise of solar, it's often the case where it's illegal (or sometimes merely inconvenient or uneconomical) to sell power back to the grid.