31 ms·

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 discussi

by 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.

by vdaniuk 13y ago

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.