3 ms·

Then you are one selfish dude or dudette. I will endure some cognitive noise aka ads if that means more web for everyone. And you know what? 50% of ads I see a

• quesera 13y ago
  No need to be hostile. I'm not threatening your livelihood. Nor am I trying to change your opinion or influence your thoughts to suit my agenda. But I do confess: I wouldn't be disappointed if that was a common courtesy.
  • vdaniuk 13y ago
    Any oral or written communication between humans or machines has a probability P to influence thoughts or opinions of human agents engaged in communication or machines that are able to learn. Marketers are increasing P to reach their business goals. Actions taken to increase P may have positive or negative externalities. For example, edX uses Google Adwords and remarketing to spread awareness about free moocs from Harvard, MIT, etc. This is an example of an action with a positive externality. Thus I demonstrate that subset of marketers that are trying to change opinions is beneficial to society, even if they are pursuing their own agenda. I respectfully reject your statement that you are not trying to change my opinion or opinions of other HN readers. See my first argument for justification.
    • quesera 13y ago
      Even the most heinous of brutalities can have positive externalities. You're really wrapped up in the defense of your point, but you're not arguing it effectively. I wish your example was relevant. Don't worry, everything is going to be fine. This decision was made long ago. I remember the day. Nothing I or anyone on HN can do will change that. However, I do take issue with your assertion that the web was built on marketing. It really wasn't.
      • vdaniuk 13y ago
        Yeah, perhaps I am not arguing my point effectively. I am not trying to convince you, though. I am trying to convince other HN users that might see our discussion. And I never asserted that web was built on marketing. Marketing is an emergent property of social systems in general and web in particular. You cant banish marketing, but you can amplify the good aspects. And to do that you've to have a rational discussion on the subject. Which I dont see even on HN. Your condescension is not lost on me and thats fine. But your second line sounds just like something fictional illuminati member in a Dan Brown book would say. What day do you remember, again?
        • quesera 13y ago
          The day I remember is the day when the NSF announced their scheduled withdrawal from oversight of the Internet, and the corresponding end of the prohibition of commercial use of same. 1994? You asserted a tight relationship between the existence of marketers and the existence of the web. The direct quote is visible above, but I see that it can be interpreted more than one way. Let's assume you meant to say that "the web would be radically altered if it wasn't an advertising medium". Then, we can agree. You have a good point: the amplification of the good aspects of marketing is a worthwhile goal. It's not going away, so is it possible to make it suck less? The problem with your argument, in my eyes, and the cause for my lapse into condescension, for which I apologize, is that your examples are so extraordinarily cherry-picked that they seem absurd to bring up. Advertising, even at its best, is a distraction from my intent. This is generally a negative thing. It's pretty important, but I'm not so fragile that it's going to derail my whole afternoon. But it's not ingratiating, and it's not necessary. You were arguing for the "necessary" angle, and I think we won't reach agreement on that one.
          • webmaven 13y ago
            This may be an overly pedantic point, but marketing != advertising.