4 ms·

Well, if Google's efficiency is the problem they should consider banning all agricultural machinery. There is untapped job potential for up to 90% of the popula

Well, if Google's efficiency is the problem they should consider banning all agricultural machinery. There is untapped job potential for up to 90% of the population! Or we could start building pyramids again - with bare hands!

lmm 14y ago
Please, read and think a little before jumping on your strawmen. The allegation is not that google is being more efficient and thereby reducing employment. The worry is that there will be much less news/television/radio because google has removed its primary source of funding. (If you believe the purpose of all things is economic optimization then this won't concern you, but many consider news/television/radio to be valuable for their own sakes)
- DominikR 14y ago
  > (If you believe the purpose of all things is economic optimization then this won't concern you, but many consider news/television/radio to be valuable for their own sakes) I do not consider news/television/radio to be inherently valuable - it's creation and distribution of content that I consider to be valuable.
- AnthonyMouse 14y ago
  I'm not sure I buy the premise. It's not Google (the company), it's the internet as a whole. More competition for news reduces margins. Suppose Google search was a grant-funded nonprofit operation with no ads. How would that improve the condition of news reporters?
  - lmm 14y ago
    It's not Google's search so much as adsense. The argument is that companies with ad budgets would no longer be spending them on google ads, so they'd direct a greater amount of money towards buying newspaper ads. So prices for ad space in newspapers would rise, and newspapers would have more money (and there would be more newspapers, as previously unprofitable niches became profitable) and spend that on reporters.
    - AnthonyMouse 14y ago
      Google News doesn't even have ads though, so that can only be referring to search and apps and the like. I mean it seems like they could just as well be arguing "billboards are destroying journalism" because the money companies spend on billboards (or direct mail, or telemarketing, etc.) are marketing dollars that could instead have gone to supporting newspapers if those alternatives didn't exist.

lmm 14y ago

Please, read and think a little before jumping on your strawmen. The allegation is not that google is being more efficient and thereby reducing employment. The worry is that there will be much less news/television/radio because google has removed its primary source of funding. (If you believe the purpose of all things is economic optimization then this won't concern you, but many consider news/television/radio to be valuable for their own sakes)

DominikR 14y ago
> (If you believe the purpose of all things is economic optimization then this won't concern you, but many consider news/television/radio to be valuable for their own sakes) I do not consider news/television/radio to be inherently valuable - it's creation and distribution of content that I consider to be valuable.
AnthonyMouse 14y ago
I'm not sure I buy the premise. It's not Google (the company), it's the internet as a whole. More competition for news reduces margins. Suppose Google search was a grant-funded nonprofit operation with no ads. How would that improve the condition of news reporters?
- lmm 14y ago
  It's not Google's search so much as adsense. The argument is that companies with ad budgets would no longer be spending them on google ads, so they'd direct a greater amount of money towards buying newspaper ads. So prices for ad space in newspapers would rise, and newspapers would have more money (and there would be more newspapers, as previously unprofitable niches became profitable) and spend that on reporters.
  - AnthonyMouse 14y ago
    Google News doesn't even have ads though, so that can only be referring to search and apps and the like. I mean it seems like they could just as well be arguing "billboards are destroying journalism" because the money companies spend on billboards (or direct mail, or telemarketing, etc.) are marketing dollars that could instead have gone to supporting newspapers if those alternatives didn't exist.