I would not do this work if I thought it was harmful, and if I decided it was harmful there are many jobs I could take instead.
I'm open to being convinced that my work is net negative! I've quit Google before: https://www.jefftk.com/p/leaving-google-joining-wave
I appreciate your engagement in this, Jeff, but I’ve read the post and I agree that it’s rather light in its evaluation of the negative value of ads.
Anyway I guess it’s getting too far off track at this point. Thanks for at least engaging in the conversation, unlike basically everyone. I would love to chat further in private if you have the time. my contact is in my profile.
While this is definitely true for some adtech vendors, none of the work I do is in that category, and to my knowledge none of the work at my employer is either.
(Still speaking only for myself)
Google is and was actively fighting privacy laws[1] (e.g. seeking exemptions allowing them to even track people who consciously opt out of data collection), had a CEO that made no secret about his anti-privacy stance[2], was repeatedly fined[3], also also for violating the privacy of children[4], etc. etc.
How do you reconcile this with your assertion that google and yourself are good players?
[1] https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2019-09-04/google-and...
[2] https://www.eff.org/de/deeplinks/2009/12/google-ceo-eric-sch...
[3] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/21/technology/google-europe-...
[4] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/04/technology/google-youtube...
From what I've seen on HN, this quote is one of the top offenders when it comes to commenters just dropping it in without further engagement. On well-moderated subreddits like /r/askhistorians, commenters are required to critically engage with their citations instead of just linking them. Likewise I feel we should put a moratorium on responding exclusively with (well worn) quotations on HN.
To be specific: the way you've responded here is trite, dismissive of someone else's perspective by way of judging them for their occupation, and generally lacking in nuance. It's middle brow posturing of insight without the substantive analysis to back it up.
What have we learned as a result of this solemn reminder that some people get paid to do things we disagree with? People are explicitly calling out their affiliations with adtech in this thread; should we abandon discussion with them because you think their paycheck precludes them from being able to be persuaded?
Here's a riposte for you: "The mark of an educated mind is the ability to entertain an idea without accepting it."