5 ms·

When I think of something being "bullshit", I think it is totally false. But many of these points are part-truths, not complete falsehoods. For example, Google

When I think of something being "bullshit", I think it is totally false. But many of these points are part-truths, not complete falsehoods. For example, Google tracks lots of personal data to make their products better. So the sentence "We solicit all of your personal information and track everything you do to make things better for you" is partially true. Of course, something is in it for Google too. When they add new features to a product driven by personal data mining, they seek to grow market share. They also use your personal data to target ads at you better. And they may be using it for further research projects that you don't know about. But the statement has a lot of truth to it. That's not the normal definition of "bullshit".

latch 15y ago
I don't disagree, but I think in the context, bullshit is being used to mean PR-talk. As you say, PR talk might be half (or more, or less) truths, but it smells nonetheless.
notaddicted 15y ago
Marco's use is consistent with "On Bullshit", Harry Frankfurt, 1986. Specifically: "Bullshit can either be true or false but bullshitters aim primarily to impress and persuade their audiences." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Bullshit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Bullshit)
nailer 15y ago
"For example, Google tracks lots of personal data to make their products better." I think the post is discussing motivation. If Google tracking you would make your life better, but somehow not help them target advertising, would they still do it?
padolsey 15y ago
The sentence from Google is a falsehood. It claims that the tracking is done for the user, and implies that this is their only intention. The actual truth is that Google only does what's "good" for the user as long as it improves their market position and/or makes them money. To have a position of "well, they do care about theirs users, even if it is to make money off of them" is intellectually dishonest because you're ignoring the implications of this -- that Google, in the end, has a drive to improve its own profits and market share. Obviously Google is made up of lots of different people and there are non-corporate wings that do actual good things, but this doesn't excuse the basic profit motive that must exist. Google doesn't care if you're getting the best experience from Facebook... they still want you to use Google+. They only want to target ads at me so that I click on them and they get more money. Google cares about my online wellbeing as much as Colgate cares about my teeth.
- nl 15y ago
  Now that is Bullshit. Yes, Google makes money from their advertising. But Google does things that directly limit their ability to make money from advertising, when those decisons are in the interest of consumers. Take the whole design and UX of Chrome. There are many, many ways Google could have changed the design to make more money from it, and yet they haven't because they aren't in the interests of the users. Additionally many (both at Google and elsewhere) believe (and can show evidence) that advertising can improve the user experience when it is done properly. Companies (especially those with a share structure like Google's) can exist to care about more than just making money.
  - padolsey 15y ago
    Google chrome isn't exactly a good example, considering that it's the only browser I've ever heard of embedding advertisements in its default homepage - http://www.techradar.com/news/mobile-computing/laptops/google-using-chrome-browser-to-flog-chromebooks-1042498 http://www.techradar.com/news/mobile-computing/laptops/googl...
    - ma2rten 15y ago
      I remember Firefox also had Thunderbird ads on it's homepage at some point. Google could have done much worse imo.
    - nl 15y ago
      The Safari homepage cross promotes. The IE home page cross promotes and/or has paid advertising (depending on your market). Even Firefox has done cross promotion occasionally. I don't use Opera often, but I don't think I've seen advertising on their dial-page thing. Is there some critical distinction I'm missing?
  - padolsey 15y ago
    Also, could you provide an example of where advertising improves the user experience?
    - 15y ago
fauigerzigerk 15y ago
Google collects personal data to make their advertising product better for advertisers. Translating that into something along the lines of "we track you to make the product better for you" is misleading to a degree that it deserves to be called bullshit. Obviously, there are indirect benefits to users from advertising. It's what funds the service after all. But there is a balance, and tracking has made the product worse for me to the point where I have stopped using it.

latch 15y ago

I don't disagree, but I think in the context, bullshit is being used to mean PR-talk. As you say, PR talk might be half (or more, or less) truths, but it smells nonetheless.

notaddicted 15y ago

Marco's use is consistent with "On Bullshit", Harry Frankfurt, 1986. Specifically: "Bullshit can either be true or false but bullshitters aim primarily to impress and persuade their audiences." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Bullshit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Bullshit)

nailer 15y ago

"For example, Google tracks lots of personal data to make their products better." I think the post is discussing motivation. If Google tracking you would make your life better, but somehow not help them target advertising, would they still do it?

padolsey 15y ago

The sentence from Google is a falsehood. It claims that the tracking is done for the user, and implies that this is their only intention. The actual truth is that Google only does what's "good" for the user as long as it improves their market position and/or makes them money. To have a position of "well, they do care about theirs users, even if it is to make money off of them" is intellectually dishonest because you're ignoring the implications of this -- that Google, in the end, has a drive to improve its own profits and market share. Obviously Google is made up of lots of different people and there are non-corporate wings that do actual good things, but this doesn't excuse the basic profit motive that must exist. Google doesn't care if you're getting the best experience from Facebook... they still want you to use Google+. They only want to target ads at me so that I click on them and they get more money. Google cares about my online wellbeing as much as Colgate cares about my teeth.

nl 15y ago
Now that is Bullshit. Yes, Google makes money from their advertising. But Google does things that directly limit their ability to make money from advertising, when those decisons are in the interest of consumers. Take the whole design and UX of Chrome. There are many, many ways Google could have changed the design to make more money from it, and yet they haven't because they aren't in the interests of the users. Additionally many (both at Google and elsewhere) believe (and can show evidence) that advertising can improve the user experience when it is done properly. Companies (especially those with a share structure like Google's) can exist to care about more than just making money.
- padolsey 15y ago
  Google chrome isn't exactly a good example, considering that it's the only browser I've ever heard of embedding advertisements in its default homepage - http://www.techradar.com/news/mobile-computing/laptops/google-using-chrome-browser-to-flog-chromebooks-1042498 http://www.techradar.com/news/mobile-computing/laptops/googl...
  - ma2rten 15y ago
    I remember Firefox also had Thunderbird ads on it's homepage at some point. Google could have done much worse imo.
  - nl 15y ago
    The Safari homepage cross promotes. The IE home page cross promotes and/or has paid advertising (depending on your market). Even Firefox has done cross promotion occasionally. I don't use Opera often, but I don't think I've seen advertising on their dial-page thing. Is there some critical distinction I'm missing?
- padolsey 15y ago
  Also, could you provide an example of where advertising improves the user experience?
  - 15y ago

fauigerzigerk 15y ago

Google collects personal data to make their advertising product better for advertisers. Translating that into something along the lines of "we track you to make the product better for you" is misleading to a degree that it deserves to be called bullshit. Obviously, there are indirect benefits to users from advertising. It's what funds the service after all. But there is a balance, and tracking has made the product worse for me to the point where I have stopped using it.