Hacker News Reader

Comment by forgottenpass | Hacker News Reader

Apparently google has an Ethicist.

Ctrl-F: Ad

Huh. Zero mentions of the thing that manipulates people by design.

I guess I don't blame him, because even with a blind spot to ads it would seem Google still doesn't give two shits about his input. He explicitly calls out a problem YouTube feature, which he certainly would have voiced internally before externally. And he doesn't work at Google anymore.

Google must want results from ethicists the way tobacco companies of old wanted results from in-house scientists.

View on HN

> Apparently google has an Ethicist.

Well, had. From his bio snippet at the bottom: "Ex-Design Ethicist & Product Philosopher @ Google"

It sounded to me like a euphemism for hanging out on the roof waiting for your non compete agreement term to run out.

I don't know that competition is so heavy in the technological ethics industry.

Also, California.

Non-compete agreements are illegal in California. He was probably waiting for his stock options to vest.

Apparently google has an Ethicist.

I'm not sure if I should rejoice that Google has one, or be worried that Google has just one.

More than one. There was a British AI company they bought on condition of hiring an AI ethicist.

So there's at least one other than the former Google ethicist who wrote this article.

He mentions "thousands of other techniques" that exist, if you read the article. I'm sure advertising is a subset of those.

Also no mention of politics, despite going on at length about the 'illusions of freedom'. Granted, going there would force an admission that the world just kinda works like this all around.

Ads don't always manipulate, they can also inform. Lets say you're looking for a new headset and have a mental buy price. The ad shows you the set you want at the price you wanted. Click, buy, and no manipulation.

> no manipulation

Because the ad is definitely a neutral source of information.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com