5 ms·

Hey, thanks for the comment. Your point about financial security and "high-profile" companies are exactly the narrative I'm taking aim at. Fame and fortune are

by jcavnar 14y ago

Hey, thanks for the comment. Your point about financial security and "high-profile" companies are exactly the narrative I'm taking aim at. Fame and fortune are not truly sufficient motivators for innovation. Developers can do more and deserve better than to barter their skills for either of those two things. Also, show me a modestly talented developer in today's tech economy who is "strapped for cash" and I will show you someone who choses to not help themselves.

niggler 14y ago
Point-blank: I see the entire social media ecosystem (not the individual social networks but the businesses that thrive because of it or cater to it), including Singly, as part of the problem: It stretches the definition of "making" and basks in the frivolity of reality shows etc. And I think you are talking out of both sides of your mouth by promulgating this conscience while taking millions of dollars of VC money and focusing on the exact problem you are lamenting -- I bet you dollars to donuts that your investors ultimately want you to focus on profit. Solving problems in the realm of ad optimization, for example, are as much making as any of the projects you see on github or any of the arduino projects you see mentioned here and elsewhere. In fact, in many ways those ad problems are harder, usually involving more advanced math or clever data analysis techniques to deal with large amounts of data. 'Also, show me a modestly talented developer in today's tech economy who is "strapped for cash" and I will show you someone who choses to not help themselves.' The joke here is that the developer who is choosing conscience over profit is the type of developer who would be working at a nonprofit or other context that wouldn't be paying nearly as well as a vc-backed startup.
- jcavnar 14y ago
  Yeah...these points again illustrate the very lines of thinking being called into question with the article. 1) Solving "problems" and fulfilling a maker's purpose are not even close to the same thing. 2) nobody working at any of the initiatives listed in the article is "strapped for cash" when you compare their wages to the rest of the world -- they are making a good living doing something they believe in. 3) to be VC backed and to generate a profit doesn't inherently suggest something might not also have a deeper purpose.
  - niggler 14y ago
    I just wish you would follow your own advice ...
- eevilspock 14y ago
  Solving problems in the realm of ad optimization, for example, are as much making as any of the projects you see on github or any of the arduino projects you see mentioned here and elsewhere. In fact, in many ways those ad problems are harder, usually involving more advanced math or clever data analysis techniques to deal with large amounts of data. And that is exactly Jeff Hammerbacher's point. It's irrelevant whether or not he's a hypocrite. It sucks. And by the way, his lament isn't simply about those work on ad optimization (something I know about, regrettably), but about all products that rely on ad revenue, because as they say, with those business models users are not the customer but the product. Most ads are fundamentally manipulative if not dishonest. The "but ads support a free web" is utter bullshit. There is no free lunch. Advertising simply shifts the cost of the "fee lunch" to the price of the advertised products. In other words we still end up paying. Even worse, it might shift costs regressively, toward lower incomes and the less educated. BUT IT'S WORSE: We end up paying a lot more. Not only are you still paying for the costs of the "free website", you are paying for all that advertising overhead, the costs of advertising technology and infrastructure (huge, btw), the agency and creative costs (Don Draper and his colleagues have to pay for the hookers and scotch somehow, not to mention what’s-his-name who basically just lounges in his office barefoot thinking Japanese), and big marketing departments that often outnumber the people who actually write or make things. You are also paying the opportunity cost of inferior product, because that’s what happens when websites have to design to please advertisers over pleasing us, the users. Dalton Caldwell makes this point comparing Sourceforge to Github: http://daltoncaldwell.com/an-audacious-proposal http://daltoncaldwell.com/an-audacious-proposal. Our identities and privacy are bought and sold to the highest bidders. So we foot the bill for those bids AND we pay the cost of lost privacy. A double whammy! It's personalization? Bullshit. Personalization means optimizing something for me, not optimizing for the advertiser. Again, who's the real customer? IT GETS EVEN WORSE. Think of the social costs of advertising. The web is infested with misinformation and manipulation. Not just ads, but how relying on a revenue stream entirely dependent on how many ads are seen severely affects the moral choices of those who decide what gets produced and how its presented, the same if not worse than it affects cable “news”. What are the costs of a misinformed and variously manipulated citizenry, of distortions to the free-market? Knowledge and discourse are the lifeblood of both democracy, free markets, progress. The web, from the little scammy websites to the big brand ones that so many blindly trust, has a huge influence on who we vote for, what we buy, and most importantly, what we believe. Getting back to the OP's point, if we put conscience ahead of profit, we'd not build ad-supported products. Those are deals with the devil, nothing less.

by jcavnar 14y ago

niggler 14y ago

Point-blank: I see the entire social media ecosystem (not the individual social networks but the businesses that thrive because of it or cater to it), including Singly, as part of the problem: It stretches the definition of "making" and basks in the frivolity of reality shows etc. And I think you are talking out of both sides of your mouth by promulgating this conscience while taking millions of dollars of VC money and focusing on the exact problem you are lamenting -- I bet you dollars to donuts that your investors ultimately want you to focus on profit. Solving problems in the realm of ad optimization, for example, are as much making as any of the projects you see on github or any of the arduino projects you see mentioned here and elsewhere. In fact, in many ways those ad problems are harder, usually involving more advanced math or clever data analysis techniques to deal with large amounts of data. 'Also, show me a modestly talented developer in today's tech economy who is "strapped for cash" and I will show you someone who choses to not help themselves.' The joke here is that the developer who is choosing conscience over profit is the type of developer who would be working at a nonprofit or other context that wouldn't be paying nearly as well as a vc-backed startup.

jcavnar 14y ago
Yeah...these points again illustrate the very lines of thinking being called into question with the article. 1) Solving "problems" and fulfilling a maker's purpose are not even close to the same thing. 2) nobody working at any of the initiatives listed in the article is "strapped for cash" when you compare their wages to the rest of the world -- they are making a good living doing something they believe in. 3) to be VC backed and to generate a profit doesn't inherently suggest something might not also have a deeper purpose.
- niggler 14y ago
  I just wish you would follow your own advice ...
eevilspock 14y ago
Solving problems in the realm of ad optimization, for example, are as much making as any of the projects you see on github or any of the arduino projects you see mentioned here and elsewhere. In fact, in many ways those ad problems are harder, usually involving more advanced math or clever data analysis techniques to deal with large amounts of data. And that is exactly Jeff Hammerbacher's point. It's irrelevant whether or not he's a hypocrite. It sucks. And by the way, his lament isn't simply about those work on ad optimization (something I know about, regrettably), but about all products that rely on ad revenue, because as they say, with those business models users are not the customer but the product. Most ads are fundamentally manipulative if not dishonest. The "but ads support a free web" is utter bullshit. There is no free lunch. Advertising simply shifts the cost of the "fee lunch" to the price of the advertised products. In other words we still end up paying. Even worse, it might shift costs regressively, toward lower incomes and the less educated. BUT IT'S WORSE: We end up paying a lot more. Not only are you still paying for the costs of the "free website", you are paying for all that advertising overhead, the costs of advertising technology and infrastructure (huge, btw), the agency and creative costs (Don Draper and his colleagues have to pay for the hookers and scotch somehow, not to mention what’s-his-name who basically just lounges in his office barefoot thinking Japanese), and big marketing departments that often outnumber the people who actually write or make things. You are also paying the opportunity cost of inferior product, because that’s what happens when websites have to design to please advertisers over pleasing us, the users. Dalton Caldwell makes this point comparing Sourceforge to Github: http://daltoncaldwell.com/an-audacious-proposal http://daltoncaldwell.com/an-audacious-proposal. Our identities and privacy are bought and sold to the highest bidders. So we foot the bill for those bids AND we pay the cost of lost privacy. A double whammy! It's personalization? Bullshit. Personalization means optimizing something for me, not optimizing for the advertiser. Again, who's the real customer? IT GETS EVEN WORSE. Think of the social costs of advertising. The web is infested with misinformation and manipulation. Not just ads, but how relying on a revenue stream entirely dependent on how many ads are seen severely affects the moral choices of those who decide what gets produced and how its presented, the same if not worse than it affects cable “news”. What are the costs of a misinformed and variously manipulated citizenry, of distortions to the free-market? Knowledge and discourse are the lifeblood of both democracy, free markets, progress. The web, from the little scammy websites to the big brand ones that so many blindly trust, has a huge influence on who we vote for, what we buy, and most importantly, what we believe. Getting back to the OP's point, if we put conscience ahead of profit, we'd not build ad-supported products. Those are deals with the devil, nothing less.