Great overview of how ads work, but the rant is still valid. As the end, the environment around us will end up to be very similar to one described in the movie Idiocracy.
Yeah, but the blame the article's author espouses is misplaced.
It's not Google's fault that people want to play games any more than it's the sun's fault that it's shining outside of my window on days when I need to get real work done.
As usual it's easier to blame icons and officials in situations where really it's the consumers that drive these corporate decisions with their everyday decisions.
Granted, Google is showing self-serving ads that benefit it... but then again, maybe that site the opinion writer was reading is only possible because Google Adwords funds it. That part is a wash to me.
Sure, there's something sad in all this. It's sad that people want to play mindless games, watch sports, watch reality tv, etc. instead of learning and growing 99% of the time (or whatever) when given the choice. I don't really fault entertainers for providing the entertainment, though.
I don't think the blame is misplaced - raganwald addresses your point in the post, that "whatever people click on is obviously right", and that it's a cop-out.
Yeah, a lot of people will choose a Big Mac over a salad, and a lot of people will scarf down fried chicken before a sandwich - that doesn't make their choices optimal, either for themselves or for society at large.
You're also discounting the enormous effect policy has. We've gone from a nation of chain-smokers to one where I don't have to walk through clouds of smoke to get from A to B, and this has largely been driven not by some phenomenal and accidental change in social norms, but by a concerted effort of government and individuals.
So it's not so much blaming Google, as to say that with Google's money, intelligence, and influence that we can be putting this "remnant inventory" to socially higher causes, rather than try to collect a pittance on it by hawking scams and get-rich-quick schemes.
Yes, government policy has a huge effect, for one it created the nation of chain smokers.
What Google does is monetize the products of our school system, the school system produces mindless consumers incapable of producing on their own. Google connects these dependents of the state to the people who can produce the goods they need to live.
If you want to change what Google promotes simply transform the school system into an education system predicated upon critical and independent thought. By transforming the school system you'll have solved a whole host of social problems, the least of which will be ads hawking get rich quick schemes.
I'm in favor of a lot of ways to fix this problem. What I cannot abide is the whole "people are stupid and want stupid things, I'm just fulfilling their stupid demands" excuse.
What hope does this world have when its best and brightest are content with swindling money out of the ill-informed?
None, whatsoever. But what alternative do the "best and the brightest" have? After all, in order to keep being "the best and the brightest" they do need to pay rent (and have an occasional steak dinner).
What value is there in educating if one can simply purchase social capital when one needs it?
> "After all, in order to keep being "the best and the brightest" they do need to pay rent (and have an occasional steak dinner)."
Plenty of people pay rent and eat well and aren't complicit in scams and get-rich-quick schemes. Plenty of people have jobs that pay well and don't pander to the lowest common denominator and reinforce ignorance...
If you think I'm advocating pandering to the lowest common denominator and reinforcing ignorance, you are mistaken.
I am pointing out the fact that within a system of social organization which allows "material capital" to be easily convertible to "social capital" this type of behavior will always exist. Moreover, in most cases it will be a superior social/business strategy.
Consider a hypothetical example. Evil Company X can do a "socially harmful" thing Y and make Z dollars or a "socially beneficial" thing W and make V dollars. Well, if Z - [the cost of whitewashing] > V, why not do it?
Furthermore, should the CEO of ECX opt to do V and forego greater profits, investors of X would be well-justified to vote for his removal at the subsequent board meeting. After all, the CEO was not representing THEIR best interests...
Mostly everyone is a criminal, if you've gotten a city parking ticket you're a criminal.
If you've let your meter run out but didn't get caught it's still criminal. Didn't wear your seatbelt? Criminal.
Were you having a bad day but when you talked to the city clerk you told them it was going well? You're a criminal.
Altria sells a product that is harmful to people's health while providing other benefits, like most other products including car manufactures, coffee shops, etc.
Does Altria break a criminal statute? It's pretty much inevitable that they do.
Would I characterize them as a criminal enterprise? No.
Some people are far more concerned about living life than prolonging death. If you don't like cigarettes don't smoke.
I find this really interesting. The term "ill-informed" is often used as a dramatic simplification for "someone who has different views than I do" or "someone who makes poor choices".
Here: I'm a smoker. Do I know that smoking is terrible for me? Yes, absolutely. Is there any possible way to make a case that I'm "ill-informed" about the effects of tobacco? Not at all. And yet, I live with the fact that, every day, I choose to smoke tobacco. Yes, I'm addicted to it, and yes, I'm going to quit smoking it (because I know it's terrible for me), but... I'm not quitting today :)
>It's not Google's fault that people want to play games //
In the same way it's not the drug dealers fault that people [who they actively sought to get addicted] want to buy drugs [in excesses that will most likely see them to an early grave].
If you ask me for help with your homework, I could recommend a relevant and informative documentary I happen to know about, or I could tell you to forget your homework and play a game, because I'm getting a commission from the games company.
Clearly you are responsible for taking my advice or not, but am I not also responsible for the choices I offer you?
I dunno. Am I paying you for your advice or are am I getting it for free?
What right or expectation do I have to assume that you're giving me good homework advice?
Are you a friend of mine? Am I relying upon my past experience?
If I'm not paying you, you're not a friend of mine, you're just some marketer paying sites to show your ads... I expect no real value from them.
I almost never click on Google Ads embedded in web pages, so I don't understand the blame game going on. Some suckers do click on them. They pay for free web content. Who am I do bite the hand that feeds us for free?
I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean by "take responsibility".
I'm reacting mostly to those two words since they have legal ramifications.
You tell me what you mean by "take responsibility", and I'll tell you whether or not I think that there should be a business or binding legal relationship before someone should be compelled to "take responsibility".
Of course. Quite the contrary, I believe that very few of your worldview values should need to be imposed by force.
That's really a change of subject, though. You said "take responsibility". In our society today, "take responsibility" has connotations, mostly legal. Or the next line of reasoning is if people should "take responsibility", then the government should enforce it with laws and police action.
Yesterday, a married couple emailed me for advice on a condo that they're looking to purchase where I just bought one. I don't know them. I don't owe them anything. I don't even feel any social pressure since it's a vacation area and I likely will never meet or see them. However, I took about 30 minutes to write up a lot of details on what I had experienced in my purchase and gave them my best advice I had.
What I resent is someone telling me that I had some real "responsibility" to do so. I did it because I'm a friendly person and I wanted to. Not because I had someone else's tyrannical view of enforced egalitarianism.
My reasoning all ties back to Google. They have a responsibility to their shareholders. They have a responsibility to keep the contracts that they enter. Their responsibility to their shareholders might include showing useful dinosaur information in their AdWords to someone researching dinosaurs because they want to look clueful. They have no moral responsibility to do so. They have no legal responsibility to do so.
That's why I asked you. What do you mean by "take responsibility"?
Google ads stink? Turn on kiosk mode and load wikipedia before letting your kid on the computer. Or just download some quality content and unplug the network cable, which is probably the best idea anyway.
As both your link and the broader scope of European history indicate, Roman society of 100 CE was in fact in the midst of a many-generations-long decline into irrelevance, so this is perhaps an unintentionally apt citation.
Well that depends. Comparing Europe now and 100, 250, 500, 1000, 1500, 2000 years ago makes now appear much better on various metrics: political & military stability, human rights, women's rights, life expantency, death from disease and plague, famine, social equality, the wealth of the lower 50% of the population, gay rights, racism, manual labour, religious toleration, etc. etc.
As tlogan's response notes, the distinction to draw in judging 100CE-era commentary is not between Europe in 100CE and now, but rather between Europe in 100CE and the ensuing decades and centuries, which demonstrated that the naysayers of 100CE Europe were completely justified.
That things then swung back upward again is cold comfort to the ancient Romans and does not demonstrate that things could not swing downward for our civilization.
The history goes in waves...
The great Roman culture was in generational long decline and eventually replaced by "Dark ages". "Idiocracy" is basically something like "Dark ages".
