upvote

points

by tehlike7 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby edoceo7 hours ago|
next
[-]
Corporations are not, they're made of humans but they behave worse than an individual.
reply
upvoteby rectang6 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Fully agree. Humans are social animals who behave differently in different contexts, and the corporate context statistically ensures that the humans inside of it behave in all sorts of lamentable ways.
reply
upvoteby anticensor6 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
Corporations are just groups of people working under a common name towards a common goal, even when that goal is flimsy or bad.
reply
upvoteby TeMPOraL3 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
> Corporations are just groups of people working under a common name towards a common goal

Exactly in the same way as humans are just groups of cells working under a common genetic identity towards a common goal.

reply
upvoteby b1123 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Yes, but the worst human in an org, has the potential to drag the whole org down. Further, people are not aligned, so groups may disagree with an act, but each lack a majority to effect change. And group infighting may mean no cooperation.

We see this in politics. Orgs are political too.

(no "political" doesn't mean US Left/Righr here. It means simply "political" which can have nothing to do with government or party politics)

reply
upvoteby isncjwjxjwnd6 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
And who do you think makes these behavioural decisions? There is no “corporation”, there are, however, those currently on that company’s payroll.

It’s their fault. The people. The humans. The ones working there. The ones knowingly employing their knowledge in service of the company.

It’s always the humans.

reply
upvoteby cute_boi7 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
Politicians are also humans, everyone working for De Beers are also human... Please stop justifying egregious behavior from company who is destroying the fabric of internet with too many useless ads....And it isn't first time they are doing it, these "engineers" were the one who removed mv2 without better ad blocks in mv3.
reply
upvoteby tehlike6 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
1. ads are not useless. 2. without ads, there would be significantly less free content for people to read. 3. politicians are human too, but not the best of us except a few. Yes.

It's hip to say ads make things worse, but reality is often much more nuanced.

My original point being, many times an external person may think something is intentional when it may very well be a bug or may be there for a good reason.

I have observed a few of those both as an external person or an internal person.

reply
upvoteby Geezus_421 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Can't remember the last time I saw an ad for something I was actually interested in. These days I am often discouraged from buying a product based on ads.
reply
upvoteby jasomill4 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
I don't think anyone is denying the value of advertising to Google or its advertisers.

But with fewer ads influencing their spending, readers might have more disposible income left over to fund content.

reply
upvoteby charcircuit6 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
>useless ads

If the ads were useless, advertisers would not pay for them to exist.

>without better ad blocks in mv3

MV3 adblockers were built before MV2 was deprecated.

reply
upvoteby cute_boi6 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Just for your info classic ublock style doesn't work on mv3. Google have severely limited adblocking in chrome now. They deprecated very late due to pressure from people, not out of goodwill.

Useless to users, not to advertisers. And, many people like me have never purchased any products after seeing ads at least on internet.

reply