5 ms·

Not allowed to down-vote, but this is using a very large brush to paint a ton of people the same color as bad apples. Most marketing around you is perfectly et

Not allowed to down-vote, but this is using a very large brush to paint a ton of people the same color as bad apples. Most marketing around you is perfectly ethical with no desire to trick you into buying things you don't want. Most sales people you meat are perfectly ethical. There are, of course, some idiots, but that is about as productive and narrow-minded as saying that since some small percentage of programmers are misogynist, all programmers are.

Fargren 14y ago
As an aside: down-vote on HN isn't for disagreement. It's should be used when you think a post doesn't add to the discussion. The fact that you are giving an interesting counterpoint, I think, shows that the post isn't worthy of a down-vote.
- brudgers 14y ago
  I don't downvote opinions with which I agree, even when they are little but opinion. Yet, even when I have little emotional reaction, I may downvote a post with expressing an opinion with which I disagree when that post contains little but opinion. I suspect most of us are that way to some degree. Downvotes are for moderating behavior. The behaviors intended to be moderated include the person doing the downvoting - e.g. sometimes it is better for the community if I downvote something I disagree with rather than inviting an argument (at best) or a flamewar (at worst). In other words, downvoting can be a better reaction to the emotional component of a disagreement than expressing that emotional component in a response.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- jamieb 14y ago
  http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=117171 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=117171 PG: "I think it's ok to use the up and down arrows to express agreement. Obviously the uparrows aren't only for applauding politeness, so it seems reasonable that the downarrows aren't only for booing rudeness."
  - Fargren 14y ago
    I stand corrected.
    - mindcrime 14y ago
      It may be pg's site, and he sets the rules in the technical sense, but I feel like a majority of the users of the site agree with your position, and would discourage people from downvoting simply out of disagreement. The "rules" are one thing, the "culture" may be different. In this case, I think the cultural norm is in favor of not expressing disagreement through downvotes. But that's just me. shrug
seanp2k2 14y ago
>"Most marketing around you is perfectly ethical with no desire to trick you into buying things you don't want" Disagree. Banks, housing, car leases, cell phone service, Comcast, etc are all doing this kind of stuff or worse (just charging you fees that you "agreed" to in some 20-page ToS somewhere). Repeat after me: "The purpose of a corporation is to increase shareholder value." If it can be done ~legally with the gains outweighing the bad PR / marketing effort regression, it will most likely be done. "That just makes business sense!". You are not legally required to be a good guy, and good luck getting rich not being the tiniest bit evil.
Tichy 14y ago
Data? Because I seriously doubt your claim. Would be genuinely interested, though. In theory it seems sometimes possible, if you really believe what you market makes the live of the person you market to better. But is that really more often a motivator than "if you sell x, you get a bonus"?
- dizzystar 14y ago
  My personal experience in the field? There is a line between blatant manipulation and offering information to those who are interested in the products and services. Most of the marketers I know have lines they won't cross over. Just because some have zero limits doesn't mean we all do.
crusso 14y ago
A good deal of Marketing on the Advertising side deals with manipulation of the human psyche. Using various techniques such as "bandwagoning", "celebrity endorsements", "card stacking", etc. are not at all intended to help the user make a good choice. They're intended to fool the user into making a choice for the associated product or service. Really, any advertising that isn't just an honest presentation of the facts could easily be described as "unethical".
- chatmasta 14y ago
  If you believe in your product, then you should also believe you are guiding them to the "best choice."
  - crusso 14y ago
    Perpetrators of the Spanish Inquisition believed that they were guiding Jews to the "best choice". That didn't make their actions ethical.
    - rhizome 14y ago
      It was ethical in that they had reasons for doing it, but that didn't mean it wasn't destructive and counter-productive. Those are still ethical choices, though, "ethics" is not a "good or bad," it's just a name for the group of reasons used to do something.
      - crusso 14y ago
        Ethics involves some judgement of "right" and "wrong". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that torturing people so that they worship your "loving and forgiving God" is unethical.
        rhizome 14y ago
        It's certainly destructive. However, certain people throughout history have figured out way for the ends to justify the means, they had an ethic (cf. TV's Dexter), and this contextual dependence is what I'm trying to describe.

Fargren 14y ago

As an aside: down-vote on HN isn't for disagreement. It's should be used when you think a post doesn't add to the discussion. The fact that you are giving an interesting counterpoint, I think, shows that the post isn't worthy of a down-vote.

brudgers 14y ago
I don't downvote opinions with which I agree, even when they are little but opinion. Yet, even when I have little emotional reaction, I may downvote a post with expressing an opinion with which I disagree when that post contains little but opinion. I suspect most of us are that way to some degree. Downvotes are for moderating behavior. The behaviors intended to be moderated include the person doing the downvoting - e.g. sometimes it is better for the community if I downvote something I disagree with rather than inviting an argument (at best) or a flamewar (at worst). In other words, downvoting can be a better reaction to the emotional component of a disagreement than expressing that emotional component in a response.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
jamieb 14y ago
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=117171 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=117171 PG: "I think it's ok to use the up and down arrows to express agreement. Obviously the uparrows aren't only for applauding politeness, so it seems reasonable that the downarrows aren't only for booing rudeness."
- Fargren 14y ago
  I stand corrected.
  - mindcrime 14y ago
    It may be pg's site, and he sets the rules in the technical sense, but I feel like a majority of the users of the site agree with your position, and would discourage people from downvoting simply out of disagreement. The "rules" are one thing, the "culture" may be different. In this case, I think the cultural norm is in favor of not expressing disagreement through downvotes. But that's just me. shrug

seanp2k2 14y ago

>"Most marketing around you is perfectly ethical with no desire to trick you into buying things you don't want" Disagree. Banks, housing, car leases, cell phone service, Comcast, etc are all doing this kind of stuff or worse (just charging you fees that you "agreed" to in some 20-page ToS somewhere). Repeat after me: "The purpose of a corporation is to increase shareholder value." If it can be done ~legally with the gains outweighing the bad PR / marketing effort regression, it will most likely be done. "That just makes business sense!". You are not legally required to be a good guy, and good luck getting rich not being the tiniest bit evil.

Tichy 14y ago

Data? Because I seriously doubt your claim. Would be genuinely interested, though. In theory it seems sometimes possible, if you really believe what you market makes the live of the person you market to better. But is that really more often a motivator than "if you sell x, you get a bonus"?

dizzystar 14y ago
My personal experience in the field? There is a line between blatant manipulation and offering information to those who are interested in the products and services. Most of the marketers I know have lines they won't cross over. Just because some have zero limits doesn't mean we all do.

crusso 14y ago

A good deal of Marketing on the Advertising side deals with manipulation of the human psyche. Using various techniques such as "bandwagoning", "celebrity endorsements", "card stacking", etc. are not at all intended to help the user make a good choice. They're intended to fool the user into making a choice for the associated product or service. Really, any advertising that isn't just an honest presentation of the facts could easily be described as "unethical".

chatmasta 14y ago
If you believe in your product, then you should also believe you are guiding them to the "best choice."
- crusso 14y ago
  Perpetrators of the Spanish Inquisition believed that they were guiding Jews to the "best choice". That didn't make their actions ethical.
  - rhizome 14y ago
    It was ethical in that they had reasons for doing it, but that didn't mean it wasn't destructive and counter-productive. Those are still ethical choices, though, "ethics" is not a "good or bad," it's just a name for the group of reasons used to do something.
    - crusso 14y ago
      Ethics involves some judgement of "right" and "wrong". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that torturing people so that they worship your "loving and forgiving God" is unethical.
      - rhizome 14y ago
        It's certainly destructive. However, certain people throughout history have figured out way for the ends to justify the means, they had an ethic (cf. TV's Dexter), and this contextual dependence is what I'm trying to describe.