9 ms·

I wonder how people associated with Microsoft and IBM deal with the morality issues surrounding them. What they are doing is clearly evil and detrimental to inn

• rayiner 13y ago
  I wonder how people working at Facebook and Google deal with the "morality issues" of peddling advertising to impressionable children and teenagers (while calling it "innovation") while consuming 10x as much resources per capita as people in China who actually build real tangible things? NB: I don't want to give the impression that I think advertising is bad or anything. I think of it like porn: fine for adults, but not something I want my daughter exposed to until she can appreciate what it is.
  • zht 13y ago
    has your daughter gone outside, watched a movie, watched a tv show, took the bus, went to a sporting event, etc?
    • ihsw 13y ago
      This disingenuous -- he was complaining about ads targeting children/teenagers rather than ads in general.
      • justinsteele 13y ago
        Children's toys are not generally targeted towards the parents.
        • enraged_camel 13y ago
          I think your understanding of advertising is rather shallow. Of course children's toys are targeted towards parents. The underlying message in most advertisements is, "buy this toy to make your kid happy and get them out of your hair for a few hours."
          • ivanca 13y ago
            Sometimes, sometimes the kid sees the commercial and just annoys the hell out of their parent until they buy it; specially in Christmas because is socially expected.
            • petejodo 13y ago
              This reminds me of an example in a book I read about advertising. Toy companies increase advertisement before Christmas but lower production rates so the big toys of the season sell out. The reasoning is that kids bother their parents to buy the toy and the parents promise they will but can't since its all sold out so they buy something else. The toy companies cut the ads a little before Xmas only to ramp it up again a month or so later at which point the kids complain that you promised and parents psycologically feel obligated to buy. The toy companies then get 2 purchases from you. They use your kids against you
    • npsimons 13y ago
      You know, there are some places where at least two of those things don't involve any advertising, thankfully.
    • deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
  • saidajigumi 13y ago
    One of the best classes I had in college was "Reasoning and Critical Thinking", taught by the Philosophy department. A few friends and I took it to satisfy some degree requirement or other. Afterwards we reflected that wasn't enough -- we felt that a passing grade should be required for graduation for every single student. Why? Because it was inoculation against bogus argument. It covered basic logic, logical fallacies, and gave students a solid footing in resisting and debunking nonsense in argument, advertising, and other communication. Really an invaluable life skill.
    • fiblye 13y ago
      If everybody were required to take that one particular class, the content would be so diluted that it'd lose its original intention. I think it's better for some to seek it out than for half of the freshman class taking it, failing, then complaining that it was the most worthless course ever. My university required everybody take a philosophy course, and I can't remember anything from it because there was essentially nothing taught. The professor assigned the absolute bare minimum and expected the absolute bare minimum since he knew people took it for only one reason: they needed to.
      • hvs 13y ago
        Or stop admitting students who can't pass a basic philosophy course.
        • kazagistar 13y ago
          1. You could say that about any course... Statistics comes to mind. 2. The original justification was "everyone should learn basic reasoning". You just turned it into "kick out people who can't learn it, cause screw those guys".
          • lelandbatey 13y ago
            Many people do take that opinion though. I've seen it reasoned, and felt it a little bit myself, that you should take any and every opportunity to say "kick people out who can't learn X" because that's what assures the value of the degree in the first place. However, that gets into "what does a degree really mean" and plenty of other arguments, not something I'm interested in.
  • md224 13y ago
    > I don't want to give the impression that I think advertising is bad or anything. I think of it like porn: fine for adults, but not something I want my daughter exposed to until she can appreciate what it is. That's an interesting comparison. One could argue that advertising is far worse than pornography, in the sense that pornography is usually being purposefully sought out when one is exposed to it, whereas advertising is often intrusive info-pollution, going out of its way to expose us to strongly-biased and/or manipulative rhetoric.
    • deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
  • crusso 13y ago
    I hear that complaint, but I think that my kids are growing up more savvy regarding the tricks of advertisers because they've been exposed to them at such a young age. I would definitely distinguish it from porn in that heavy sexuality is way too able to psychologically scar someone at a young age -- but learning that the Barbie in the commercial isn't as much fun to play with as the girls in the ad made it seem isn't a bad thing.
    • fallingOff 13y ago
      heavy sexuality is way too able to psychologically scar someone at a young age Evidence? Not sure what you mean by "heavy sexuality"... rape porn, sure, I'm inclined to agree, but anal sex, scat, orgies, etc. I'd need to see some proof. I saw all that when I was 8-9 years old, and anecdotally I have a healthy sex life now that is free of any destructive fetishes (or really any fetishes in general).
  • deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
• antonpug 13y ago
  Yeah. Well, at least Facebook and Google try to innovate, and are quite successful at doing so. Microsoft, never mind IBM...these are old dying giants who will never budge in the name of innovation.
  • rayiner 13y ago
    There is not (edit: much) about Facebook that deserves the label "innovative." It's an entertainment product designed to sell advertising, no different than the Superbowl or American Idol. That's totally fine, of course, the world needs entertainment and I like using Facebook to send pictures of my kid to her grandparents as much as the next guy. I also loved the first four or five seasons of American Idol (it's gone downhill) and have a Superbowl party every year. I feel like some people in Silicon Valley have this weird investment in the word "innovative." They have this need to justify making tons of money while essentially working in the advertising business. So they label every little engineering advancement "innovation" utterly diluting the word. But why is that necessary? There is nothing wrong about working in the advertising industry, or making a bunch of money selling people entertainment. But, comparing Facebook to IBM (or even Microsoft) is absolutely laughable. IBM is pushing the boundaries of semiconductor manufacturing, designing new CPUs, building artificial intelligence, etc. Google does innovate (Glass, cars, etc), but they don't make any money doing so.
    • randartie 13y ago
      Based on your comment, I feel like you value tangible things as much more innovative.
      • deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
        • aidos 13y ago
          That's a bitter sounding opinion. Sure, the things Facebook creates may not be what you consider innovative but it's pretty clear there are lots of people there creating new technology https://github.com/facebook?tab=repositories https://github.com/facebook?tab=repositories
• ihsw 13y ago
  Bread and circuses. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bread_and_circuses http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bread_and_circuses Some people look around the world and see the carpet being grabbed from beneath their feet, and the appeal of a roof and warm beds for your family is not easily ignored. Most people don't have the luxury of sacrificing their lives for an ideology, and even fewer are willing to risk their family's lives.
• mildtrepidation 13y ago
  So you idolize people who create intangible things that don't make life any better for most people all over the world, but it's wrong for people to create intangible things that you don't approve of. I agree with your disapproval, just not your backwards hero worship. And if you're going to lampoon anyone who uses "ill-gotten" wealth for philanthropy... I can't see how you'll ever be happy. People do or supervise things you consider "evil," then they turn around and work charitably, but no -- it's gotta be squeaky clean all the way down? It may be time for a reality check.
  • thesimpsons1022 13y ago
    so youre cool with hitler stealing money as long as he donates it after?
    • chadwickthebold 13y ago
      ... Seriously? I never thought I'd see an instance of Godwin's Law on HN...
      • thesimpsons1022 13y ago
        I'm not comparing him to hitler. just pointing out how silly that persons comment/train of thought was.
      • kyro 13y ago
        Dismissing something via Godwin's Law is always a cop-out.
  • mistercow 13y ago
    > it's gotta be squeaky clean all the way down? Yes. You seem to be implying that this concept is strange or ridiculous, and I don't understand why.
  • jeswin 13y ago
    Contributions from people I idolize help some of the most important projects pushing humanity forward; like Wikipedia SpaceX/NASA/ISS and LHC. Their work supports the largest computers used in medical research and weather forcasting. Not to mention every internet service we use; and some like Twitter were invaluable tools in Tunisia and Egypt. I don't know what your definition of 'intangible' is, but people I idolize are doing some tangible, visible work.
• alecco 13y ago
  I believe in the future things will be quite clear, without PR manipulated opinions. They will be remembered as sociopaths.
  • sergiosgc 13y ago
    History rarely corrects this kind of story. Gates will be remembered as an innovator and as a great man of his time, who was altruistic enough to give away most of his fortune and dedicate his latest years to humanitarian causes. The chokehold Microsoft created in the 90s IT industry will be a footnote in History. For a reference of this kind of History effect, compare the common man views of Nikola Tesla and Thomas Edison. They shared the same period in History, and worked in the same field (the electricity boom). Edison was the astute businessman with shady tactics but also with public success. Tesla, a brilliant scientist, produced the still unchallenged fundamentals for electricity transmission and for AC electric motors. Which one is considered the epitome of innovation? The shady acute businessman.
    • erikpukinskis 13y ago
      Do you really think History (as in the practice, not the story) will continue to follow the same rules post-internet as it did pre-internet? Modeling the future path of that field on its past mechinations seems silly to me. Any sensible model of future history, I think, must be built on novel, untested understandings of the new physics of information, to have even an outside chance of predictive power.
    • eliasmacpherson 13y ago
      To be honest, I feel that if History did that, it would be right. I've worked with people who've worked with people who've had Microsoft bully their businesses into submission. But even though it sounds trite, that's their first world problems. Gates is now focusing on third world problems. I'm comfortable with the stranglehold being a footnote so long as it is not completely glossed over.
      • sergiosgc 13y ago
• shmerl 13y ago
  For some Bill Gates associates with his infamous letter which can be considered the cornerstone of all the IP crookedness which comes out of Microsoft (like software patents racket and so on): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Letter_to_Hobbyists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Letter_to_Hobbyists
• hackinthebochs 13y ago
  The amount of circlejerking in these comments is appalling. To label a corporation in favor of software patents as 'evil' does nothing but water down the word. There are many legitimate reasons to be for software patents and I'm sure there are many legitimate software patents. Patent trolling is a hindrance to innovation, sure. But equating the two is absurd and I'm annoyed at the serious lack of substance in any of these comments.
• jim-greer 13y ago
  From the NYT: Microsoft sang a very different tune in 1991. In a memo to his senior executives, Bill Gates wrote, “If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today’s ideas were invented, and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete standstill today.” Mr. Gates worried that “some large company will patent some obvious thing” and use the patent to “take as much of our profits as they want.” http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/09/opinion/09lee.html http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/09/opinion/09lee.html
  • shooper 13y ago
    That actually sounds logical to me, like Obama taking money from companies despite opposing the Citizen's United verdict. The rules are the same for all, and people take advantage of the rules. It is also similar to Google warning about the patent issues with H.264 while pushing WebM and then later (through Motorola) asking for exorbitant licensing fees for H.264 patents, from Microsoft and Google. They got fined over the FRAND abuse by the courts. http://www.idownloadblog.com/2013/09/06/apple-google-motorola-patent-troll/ http://www.idownloadblog.com/2013/09/06/apple-google-motorol... Hate the game, not the players.
    • twoodfin 13y ago
      like Obama taking money from companies despite opposing the Citizen's United verdict It's still illegal for corporations and unions to give money to political candidates' campaigns, or coordinate their own spending with those campaigns. They are free to give money to advocacy groups to run ads with a political message, or run their own ads, but that's not the same thing.
      • shooper 13y ago
        Indeed, but it's a distinction without a difference since the biggest cost is TV and Radio campaigns and Super PACs run ads. The issue was that Obama blessed a super PAC officially and his cabinet and campaign folks talked to the donors at their meetings. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/72531.html http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/72531.html
• philwelch 13y ago
  It's hard to imagine the impact of open source software exceeding that of eradicating malaria and polio.
  • deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  • dwaltrip 13y ago
    I could see open software being more important on the 100+ year scale (I could also see it not). The work or Bill Gates is very high impact, though.
    • Tyrannosaurs 13y ago
      Depends the value you put on potentially hundreds of millions of lives and what might be achieved by those people who otherwise wouldn't have survived. Ultimately it's an apples and oranges comparison though and not especially useful.
      • dwaltrip 13y ago
        That is fair. Open software could save many lives too (potentially more than the quoted hundreds of millions), but it is definitely a lot less clear or certain. Also, wow! I knew malaria was a big deal, but I didn't realize it was that big.
        • Tyrannosaurs 13y ago
          It's massive. Also, the 100 year timescale helps... Regardless of what you think about Microsoft, you have to say, Gates isn't messing around with some vanity project. The man has come to play.
• vijayr 13y ago
  Agreed, even though I've lots of respect for BG's humanitarian work. Also, it is much much easier to do good when one has insane amounts of money, than one doesn't. Today, almost every company thinks their first (and only?) responsibility is to their shareholders, and hence profit. That affects every decision they make, and they somehow come up with rationalizations for their behavior. Until this line of thinking changes, how can we expect anything nice to happen (nice for the common good, but terrible for short term profits)?
  • marincounty 13y ago
    His humanitarian work was out of your pocket.
• jcromartie 13y ago
  > the impact of their contributions might have already superseded what Gates has been able to accomplish Oh come on. In the long run, the ideas of Free Software are hugely important. But for now, Gates is actually helping people not die through philanthropy on a level which, as far as I know, Torvalds and Stallman are not even remotely capable of achieving.
  • leal 13y ago
    Technology does help people immensely, perhaps in ways less measurable than philanthropy. Consider medical devices, weather forecasting, medical research - all these significantly leverage GNU/Linux.
• deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
• blahbl4hblahtoo 13y ago
  I'm not trying to be a jerk or anything, but saying that software patents are "evil" is hyperbolic. The slave trade is evil. Software patents are a real problem area of our law...but they don't rise to the level of "evil".