Hacker News Reader

Comment by mc32 | Hacker News Reader

If for the sake of argument we presume the postulate true and we envision a better informed future could a company such as Google (or others) be obliged to a point where past a certain threshold social media and media in general adjust one's exposure to counteract people's unhealthy impulses?

For example, if (Google) knows you are living beyond your means then ads targeted change in aspect from aspirational to more basic needs and the news and social media surfaced to you modify so that you feel less stressed and less out of a loop till the time you have more disposable income?

(just a thought experiment)

View on HN

Perhaps I am cynical, but what's the profit motive for Google? They're much more financially motivated to be complicit and find vulnerable people to advertise to, if not create vulnerability, assuming that there won't be backlash against them in particular.

If Google is about cataloging the world's information and making a profit via advertising, then it might be in their interest to have healthier consumers over anxious and perhaps sick (mentally vulnerable) consumers. For example, they might prefer making a dollar in revenue selling a pair of eyeglasses over selling a bottle of night train.

In a symbiotic relationship it's in your interest for both entities to remain healthy.

In the alternative scenario, ultimately it ends in selling a casket, however presumably there is more money to be made in a healthy and happy customer.

I think the general trend in business is to squeeze out as much from a customer now and worry about consequences later. I doubt this will work and it's probably not desirable to have some giant company determine what's good for people. Especially one that lives off advertising.

I think the general trend in business is to squeeze out as much from a customer now and worry about consequences later

No large company can see further ahead than the next quarterly earnings report.

True for companies in commodities but not all companies (ex. AMZ, GOOG, MSFT --they take longer views) and then you have state underwritten companies, or reporting regimes are different (CN, JP, etc.)

It's an interesting concept but I think the application would be troubling. Corporate responsibility is a system that's not particularity well suited a tool for spiritual or emotional guidance at an automated level. You can argue it is the very culprit for increased anxiety in the face of an automated workforce, and an escalating competitive workforce intellect amongst the population at large.

tl'dr You recharge you batteries in life a number of healthy and natural ways.

Ultimately, it comes down to the attitudes of shareholders. There are two major competing trends in this respect.

On the one hand, the shareholder value movement has done immense harm to the long-term planning of businesses by focusing fanatically on quarterly profits. At its worst, this turns into corporate raiding and asset stripping.

On the other, an increasing proportion of equities are held by tracker funds; Vanguard are largely indifferent to the performance of any one company, as long as the market as a whole keeps growing. The entire business of index tracker funds is predisposed upon stable long-term growth.

There are also privately-owned companies, for example with IKEA supposedly them moving heavily into Russia was just because Kamprad thought it was a good idea. It went horribly at first but they stuck to it and eventually it paid off.

The longer they remain paying customers for cell phone plans and cable bills, the longer they'll likely remain google customers.

Or, perhaps this falls under their "do no evil" mission statement!

>Could a company such as Google (or others) be obliged to a point where past a certain threshold social media and media in general adjust one's exposure to counteract people's unhealthy impulses?

Only if people strongly demand it. It wont come from politicians who those companies have in their pockets...

Well, ads for casinos and alcohol (in New York USA at least) come with fine print at the bottom encouraging responsible use and/or how to get help for problem gambling.

Yes, a perfect, benevolent, god-like corporation would do something like this. What is the point in pretending something like that could ever exist?

Self-regulation does exist, and not because of perfect benevolence. It's usually for fear of actual legal regulation (which is scarier because it's less under their control).

Once we all agree on the acceptable level of unhealthy impulses, we can do that

Reply on news.ycombinator.com