5 ms·

It should be clearly stated as an ad though, google wouldn't get away with not marking the top 2 rows of the result page as advertisement because "they disclose

It should be clearly stated as an ad though, google wouldn't get away with not marking the top 2 rows of the result page as advertisement because "they disclosed so on the FAQ"

phendrenad2 4y ago
IANAL, but isn't there a law about online ads similar to what you mention? But then again job postings probably aren't typically considered ads...
- version_five 4y ago
  Not a lawyer either, but the "ads" (and I think they are ads in the dictionary sense, plus HN refers to them as such in the FAQ) are literally on the website of the company they are advertising for. It's hard to imagine that is not allowed.
jacquesm 4y ago
But it isn't an ad. You are not required or incentivized to buy anything.
- jjulius 4y ago
  It's a "job ad". Someone paid money to have it put in front of your face.
  - caslon 4y ago
    No, they didn't, actually. It's a perk for YC companies. They paid nothing.
    - jjulius 4y ago
      OK! They didn't pay for it, but it's still an ad, and I still think it should be marked as such.
    - solarkraft 4y ago
      It is a part of an agreement including a financial transaction.
      - jacquesm 4y ago
        In the other direction than what one would normally expect with an ad.
  - jacquesm 4y ago
    They didn't. And neither do you if you post in 'who is hiring' on the 1st of the month.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- ly 4y ago
  The FAQ literally calls it a “job ad”. Ads don’t necessarily need to drive sales for them to be ads.
  - jacquesm 4y ago
    Fine, if you want to split hairs. But you knew what I meant and are simply responding to the least charitable reading of my comment. A job ad promotes the existence of a vacancy. The kind of ads that you need to disclose are ads are the ones that are about the product, not about the vacancies at the company producing the product.
    - actually_a_dog 4y ago
      > But you knew what I meant and are simply responding to the least charitable reading of my comment. Um, no: > You are not required or incentivized to buy anything.
- gojomo 4y ago
  'Ad' doesn't require persuasion to purchase anything. Ads for political candidates (urging you to vote) & many causes (urging you to change other behaviors) are still ads. Often such ads are donated, with no payment for placement. That said, I think the implicit disclosure via the declaration of affiliation with the site operators – YC – & unique behavior of these posts is sufficient for readers to understand the situation. Even without any label, most people would classify such posts as "job ads". Whatever harm might accrue to the absolutely densest readers who don't get that seems rather small. Probably less than the harm that other readers might suffer from any crude 'ad' label, which risks leading an even larger group of slightly-less-dense readers to make unwarranted assumptions that such placements are sold for cash via some ad department, or that HN is generally open to paid advertising. All communication is imperfect, with tradeoffs.

It should be clearly stated as an ad though, google wouldn't get away with not marking the top 2 rows of the result page as advertisement because "they disclosed so on the FAQ"

phendrenad2 4y ago

IANAL, but isn't there a law about online ads similar to what you mention? But then again job postings probably aren't typically considered ads...

version_five 4y ago
Not a lawyer either, but the "ads" (and I think they are ads in the dictionary sense, plus HN refers to them as such in the FAQ) are literally on the website of the company they are advertising for. It's hard to imagine that is not allowed.

jacquesm 4y ago

But it isn't an ad. You are not required or incentivized to buy anything.

jjulius 4y ago
It's a "job ad". Someone paid money to have it put in front of your face.
- caslon 4y ago
  No, they didn't, actually. It's a perk for YC companies. They paid nothing.
  - jjulius 4y ago
    OK! They didn't pay for it, but it's still an ad, and I still think it should be marked as such.
  - solarkraft 4y ago
    It is a part of an agreement including a financial transaction.
    - jacquesm 4y ago
      In the other direction than what one would normally expect with an ad.
- jacquesm 4y ago
  They didn't. And neither do you if you post in 'who is hiring' on the 1st of the month.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
ly 4y ago
The FAQ literally calls it a “job ad”. Ads don’t necessarily need to drive sales for them to be ads.
- jacquesm 4y ago
  Fine, if you want to split hairs. But you knew what I meant and are simply responding to the least charitable reading of my comment. A job ad promotes the existence of a vacancy. The kind of ads that you need to disclose are ads are the ones that are about the product, not about the vacancies at the company producing the product.
  - actually_a_dog 4y ago
    > But you knew what I meant and are simply responding to the least charitable reading of my comment. Um, no: > You are not required or incentivized to buy anything.
gojomo 4y ago
'Ad' doesn't require persuasion to purchase anything. Ads for political candidates (urging you to vote) & many causes (urging you to change other behaviors) are still ads. Often such ads are donated, with no payment for placement. That said, I think the implicit disclosure via the declaration of affiliation with the site operators – YC – & unique behavior of these posts is sufficient for readers to understand the situation. Even without any label, most people would classify such posts as "job ads". Whatever harm might accrue to the absolutely densest readers who don't get that seems rather small. Probably less than the harm that other readers might suffer from any crude 'ad' label, which risks leading an even larger group of slightly-less-dense readers to make unwarranted assumptions that such placements are sold for cash via some ad department, or that HN is generally open to paid advertising. All communication is imperfect, with tradeoffs.