10 ms·

I understand your point of view, and I'm not saying you don't have a point. But something tells me that you would take a more pragmatic approach if your livelih

I understand your point of view, and I'm not saying you don't have a point. But something tells me that you would take a more pragmatic approach if your livelihood or that of a close relative were directly affected by the company's poor sales as a result. Remember, everyone's job contributes to sales, whether they like it or not :)

squigz 2y ago
Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe I'd take a more pragmatic approach to drug policy if I or a loved one were a drug dealer, too?
latexr 2y ago
I for one take the pragmatic approach of not working for companies with practices I object to. Thus I’m never faced with that dilemma.
- baridbelmedar 2y ago
  Well, many industries rely on advertising to sell their products, and I wouldn't say those industries are inherently worse than others.
  - latexr 2y ago
    > Well, many industries rely on advertising to sell their products I’m not objecting to advertising, but the privacy violations. > and I wouldn't say those industries are inherently worse than others. I wouldn’t (and didn’t) say that either.
- mtlynch 2y ago
  I'd imagine it's more complicated than that. If you use iOS or Android, I'd imagine there's some practice of Google or Apple that you object to, so it's not practical to do it in all cases. In my experience, I try to avoid companies with objectionable practices, but in a lot of cases, all the vendors are varying degrees of unscrupulous. Or the vendors that are ethical have a significantly worse customer experience because they're playing fair against competitors who are playing unfair. So, I'm left to either choose the least bad vendor or face massive inconvenience from not using a competitive vendor.
  - latexr 2y ago
    Using a product is different from having your livelihood depend on the company’s sales. You’re referring to the former but I was referring to the latter, as that is the point of the comment I replied to.
    - mtlynch 2y ago
      You're right. I misread "working for" as "working with."
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
amarcheschi 2y ago
Or perhaps, given the debatable efficiency of these ads systems, they might have been working at a different company or at a different project and actually create something useful for the end user or something that at least would work
HenryBemis 2y ago
You are the very reason why I use adblockers, and block a bunch of URLs and IPs on my router (to protect myself and my family), _and_ try to convince loved ones to up their security/privacy game; while at the same time I know that most people are sheep and have this exact opinion, so I own stock of MS, Apple, Google, and others, that 'feed' on the people with that mindset. It's kinda like those Silicon Valley execs that make these (mental) poisonous products but don't let their kids use them...? So thank you for the dividends, but I will feed my family (mentally) healthy stuff and not (mental) junkfood. All because "hey the poor ad execs need one more speedboat!". Thank you for your service :)
- squigz 2y ago
  > You are the very reason why I use adblockers, and block a bunch of URLs and IPs on my router (to protect myself and my family), _and_ try to convince loved ones to up their security/privacy game; while at the same time I know that most people are sheep and have this exact opinion, so I own stock of MS, Apple, Google, and others, that 'feed' on the people with that mindset. Interesting hypocrisy at work here.
  - amarcheschi 2y ago
    If you have a pension account or something like that, chances are you have a (although very small) stake in ms, Apple and Google as well as him
    - squigz 2y ago
      I'm too poor to have a pension account or anything like that. :P
- amarcheschi 2y ago
  The point discussed is that the ad targeting isn't even accurate, thus being inefficient and being detrimental on the long term. It isn't hard to imagine that all the work hours put into a targeting system that doesn't even know whether you're male or female could be better spent in other projects
arkh 2y ago
Would you give the same kind of excuse to slavers?
account42 2y ago
Ultimately advertising is a zero sum game anyway. If you convince someone to buy your product then they are not going to spend that money elsewhere. Sure, they might have instead saved the money but that just means spending it later. The only reason why anyone needs to advertise is to prevent others who do advertise from stealing all their customers. This is also why ads are becoming more intrusive and annoying over time - because you need to make your ads even more effective than the competition if everyone else already also uses ads.
- xanderlewis 2y ago
  Your argument about advertising being zero sum might as well be applied to any form of business (we all have a certain amount of money, and we choose where to spend it). I’m not sure how you can believe business in general is zero sum — it’s the only reason we’re now not living in caves. I get that we’re all embittered by having annoying, low-quality adverts thrust in our faces, but there’s no need to become completely cynical about economies in general.
  - squigz 2y ago
    > I get that we’re all embittered by having annoying, low-quality adverts thrust in our faces, but there’s no need to become completely cynical about economies in general. Well, maybe the adverts by themselves aren't enough, but... gestures broadly
    - xanderlewis 2y ago
      There’s much to be dismayed by in the modern world. But — and sorry to sound like such a cliche here — what alternative would you suggest to capitalism?
      - squigz 2y ago
        Why is the choice always "capitalism" or "not capitalism"? It seems to me that the real problem with it all is the false dichotomy that so many people seem to have bought into. It wasn't too long ago that we understood that we need to balance out both sides for a society to flourish. Capitalism is useful, yes, but unfettered capitalism slowly eats itself and everything adjacent to it.

squigz 2y ago

Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe I'd take a more pragmatic approach to drug policy if I or a loved one were a drug dealer, too?

latexr 2y ago

I for one take the pragmatic approach of not working for companies with practices I object to. Thus I’m never faced with that dilemma.

baridbelmedar 2y ago
Well, many industries rely on advertising to sell their products, and I wouldn't say those industries are inherently worse than others.
- latexr 2y ago
  > Well, many industries rely on advertising to sell their products I’m not objecting to advertising, but the privacy violations. > and I wouldn't say those industries are inherently worse than others. I wouldn’t (and didn’t) say that either.
mtlynch 2y ago
I'd imagine it's more complicated than that. If you use iOS or Android, I'd imagine there's some practice of Google or Apple that you object to, so it's not practical to do it in all cases. In my experience, I try to avoid companies with objectionable practices, but in a lot of cases, all the vendors are varying degrees of unscrupulous. Or the vendors that are ethical have a significantly worse customer experience because they're playing fair against competitors who are playing unfair. So, I'm left to either choose the least bad vendor or face massive inconvenience from not using a competitive vendor.
- latexr 2y ago
  Using a product is different from having your livelihood depend on the company’s sales. You’re referring to the former but I was referring to the latter, as that is the point of the comment I replied to.
  - mtlynch 2y ago
    You're right. I misread "working for" as "working with."

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

amarcheschi 2y ago

Or perhaps, given the debatable efficiency of these ads systems, they might have been working at a different company or at a different project and actually create something useful for the end user or something that at least would work

HenryBemis 2y ago

You are the very reason why I use adblockers, and block a bunch of URLs and IPs on my router (to protect myself and my family), _and_ try to convince loved ones to up their security/privacy game; while at the same time I know that most people are sheep and have this exact opinion, so I own stock of MS, Apple, Google, and others, that 'feed' on the people with that mindset. It's kinda like those Silicon Valley execs that make these (mental) poisonous products but don't let their kids use them...? So thank you for the dividends, but I will feed my family (mentally) healthy stuff and not (mental) junkfood. All because "hey the poor ad execs need one more speedboat!". Thank you for your service :)

squigz 2y ago
> You are the very reason why I use adblockers, and block a bunch of URLs and IPs on my router (to protect myself and my family), _and_ try to convince loved ones to up their security/privacy game; while at the same time I know that most people are sheep and have this exact opinion, so I own stock of MS, Apple, Google, and others, that 'feed' on the people with that mindset. Interesting hypocrisy at work here.
- amarcheschi 2y ago
  If you have a pension account or something like that, chances are you have a (although very small) stake in ms, Apple and Google as well as him
  - squigz 2y ago
    I'm too poor to have a pension account or anything like that. :P
amarcheschi 2y ago
The point discussed is that the ad targeting isn't even accurate, thus being inefficient and being detrimental on the long term. It isn't hard to imagine that all the work hours put into a targeting system that doesn't even know whether you're male or female could be better spent in other projects

arkh 2y ago

Would you give the same kind of excuse to slavers?

account42 2y ago

Ultimately advertising is a zero sum game anyway. If you convince someone to buy your product then they are not going to spend that money elsewhere. Sure, they might have instead saved the money but that just means spending it later. The only reason why anyone needs to advertise is to prevent others who do advertise from stealing all their customers. This is also why ads are becoming more intrusive and annoying over time - because you need to make your ads even more effective than the competition if everyone else already also uses ads.

xanderlewis 2y ago
Your argument about advertising being zero sum might as well be applied to any form of business (we all have a certain amount of money, and we choose where to spend it). I’m not sure how you can believe business in general is zero sum — it’s the only reason we’re now not living in caves. I get that we’re all embittered by having annoying, low-quality adverts thrust in our faces, but there’s no need to become completely cynical about economies in general.
- squigz 2y ago
  > I get that we’re all embittered by having annoying, low-quality adverts thrust in our faces, but there’s no need to become completely cynical about economies in general. Well, maybe the adverts by themselves aren't enough, but... gestures broadly
  - xanderlewis 2y ago
    There’s much to be dismayed by in the modern world. But — and sorry to sound like such a cliche here — what alternative would you suggest to capitalism?
    - squigz 2y ago
      Why is the choice always "capitalism" or "not capitalism"? It seems to me that the real problem with it all is the false dichotomy that so many people seem to have bought into. It wasn't too long ago that we understood that we need to balance out both sides for a society to flourish. Capitalism is useful, yes, but unfettered capitalism slowly eats itself and everything adjacent to it.