Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | cj's commentslogin

> line between good and evil

Talking about good and evil in tech is a slippery slope.

What's worse, working at Meta building products causing addiction in kids, or building an adult content site?

I think there's an argument that Meta is morally worse, yet there's no stigma associated with having Meta on your resume. I find that interesting.


Let me challenge your POV for a moment..

What about proportionally of abuse?

How many married people met on fb? Estranged family members reunited, long lost friends who found each other again? Etc.

It's impossible to know the number for those, but I vividly remember how difficult it was to find people before fb. And they made it trivial because of critical mass.

I'll acknowledge that this has also led to a lot of unwanted "finding" too. Again, we cannot calculate. But it's worth bringing up proportionality. Because you could make the same argument about a mass retailer like Walmart. They sell tires that were used in drunk driving crashes, they sold food eaten by obese people, they sold cigarettes (at least thru the 90s) to lung cancer victims, etc. You can skew the data however you like because they sold items to so many customers. But they also fed a lot of families and reduced the cost of living (sometimes by nefarious means) for a lot of poor people.


Facebook, as a community is fine.

The evil lies in the feed. All the standard addiction techniques are present. All the engineering to promote "engagement" is actually basically addiction. And the attempts to show you want you want have a strong tendency to show you more extreme versions of anything you previously watched. It's very, very easy for it to lead you down a rabbit hole into extremist territory. It's inherent in any such prediction algorithm unless somehow the selector understands to bias away from extremism.


> yet there's no stigma associated with having Meta on your resume.

You think so?


Meta isn’t as blatant about it, but they’re arguably much worse than anything else listed here. I think because it has legitimate uses up front, like keeping up with your friends or selling something on the marketplace, and the true evil is just below that veneer. Gambling and payday lending is right out front.

Rockets, satellites, social media, AI - the only thing missing from the SpaceX hype portfolio is a certain coworking company. That would really set them up for an exciting IPO.

what about blockchain? /s

Is StackAdapt confirmed to be partnered with ChatGPT?

It's not crazy to think someone might pitch this to buyers without having the inventory 100% secured.

(Not crazy to think OpenAI wants to do some market testing to understand how much their ad inventory is worth)

Either way, I'm hoping ads can stay out of paid ChatGPT, at the very minimum.


Also curious about this and how these agreements generally work

Their point still stands.

Not all companies do illegal things.

IMO it’s also a distraction to blame it on “capitalism” or some “larger trend” rather than just pointing directly at the company and people responsible.

“The system is broken” line hasn’t worked for years now. Maybe if we stop blaming the system and start blaming the people?


>Not all companies do illegal things.

The Koch brothers stopped breaking the law because it was too expensive. Instead they started lobbying to get the laws changed. This is where the idea that the system is rotten comes from.


No one claimed all companies do illegal things.

All of this is a crazy overgeneralisation of the hundreds of millions of companies in the world:

> Look, there is no way corporations would lie for their own interest. Especially when they spent tens of billions to develop something.

> It's not like they sold us leaded gasoline or "healthy tobacco" for decades.


Saying "corporations have lied in the past for their own self interest" and then pointing to two very well known examples does not imply or over generalize that all corporations do that.

The point isn't to demonize all corporations, it's to say specifically that a pathology of some megacorporations is broadscale lying to the public about the safety of their products for personal gain.


If I say "Ted is the Unibomber" do you think I'm saying everyone named Ted is the Unibomber? This is basic reading comprehension stuff

I think your comment hit all the main rage bait keywords: UFOs, aliens, Epstein, Iran, Trump, sexual abuse

Oh definitely not. I didn't mention Israel/Palestine once.

they're not wrong though

I would actually be impressed with the administration if they strategically decided to use aliens as a PR move specifically to distract from the topics listed.

IMO the “why” is far simpler, not a complicated ploy to distract people’s attention.


it's not complicated they're just flailing around, why do you think we're in a completely ineffective war with iran that has opposed pretty much all strategic advice

if the press is leaning towards a bad story, they release some other thing... they've been doing it all year


> why do you think we're in a completely ineffective war with iran

I don't know, but I do know it's not because of epstein.

I still have a smidge of faith in humanity. Maybe I shouldn't.


The last 6 months has been nothing but distraction lever-pulls away from the Epstein Files,

and strategy is easily outsourced to others.


I feel like humans would be better at hyper targeting.

AI agents have the benefit of working at scale, probably "better" used for mass targeting.


this like is saying email marketing is done better if you hand write every email. Thats true, but the hit rate is so low, that you are better off generating 1 million hyper personalized emails and firing them off into the ether

As someone who did the former for a couple years, “better off” is subjective and dependent on your business model, particularly for B2B. It’s a trade off like anything else. You may get more leads, but they may convert at a lower rate. Sending at that scale also increases your risk of email deliverability problems. Trashing your domain has more impacts than you’d think. In smaller, targeted markets it even can damage your business reputation and hurt future sales if done poorly; word gets around.

If you’re targeting a million people, I wouldn’t consider that a hyper targeted attack.

But I get your point.


I disagree. Many humans are phishing in a different language than their native tongue, and LLMs are way better at sounding legit/professional than many of them. The best spear-phishing will still be humans, but AI definitely raises the bar.

If it's true that Musk is getting rules changes so that SpaceX can be included in the S&P earlier than the current rules allow, I think there's a non-zero chance of Musk falling even more out of favor than he currently is, if not worse (if the SpaceX IPO ends up losing people money in the first 1-2 years)

The hype train will ensure the SpaceX IPO is successful beyond the 2nd year mark. Musk keeps making these moves because he knows, he doesn’t want it catching up to him. Better to offload the risk to Wall Street.

It's the same as SEO.

No one does SEO because they're trying to help Google.

You do it because you're trying to help the people using google. (Edit: or trying to make money by driving traffic for ads)

Whether or not companies spend time on AEO is directly tied to whether LLM/agents/AI/etc end up becoming a lead channel that buyers use to research products to buy.


> You do it because you're trying to help the people using google.

Who are all _super_ interested in "Top 10 Ways to make a summer Mojito."


>You do it because you're trying to help the people using google.

Haha, no, people do it to try and get ranked higher and thus make more money. They're not trying to help anyone.


In a well functioning system, the incentive to make money is somewhat aligned with the incentive to create value for other people.

This is probably your point, but we are not in a well functioning system.

Not currently, but I have faith in our collective ability to push in the direction of such systems over the long arc of history.

Certain medical devices have remote monitoring. You won't die without internet, but your doctor might not receive updates from the device.

“Guys, we need to postpone our beta launch! We need another week to implement a backup strategy with point in time recovery!”

You don’t need backups until you have customers.


So go live without testing the backup in the beta at all?


Yes! Why build a backup process before you know you have data worth backing up.


The data recovery process needs to be validated too, preferably before customer data actually needs to be recovered.


Why go live if you don't have a reasonable expectation of users?

Worrying about HA when you don't have customers that need it is one thing, but I wouldn't want to be in a place where I have to put a banner on the website asking users to please make a new account because we had an oopsie.


To be fair, there's a big difference between "we do periodic backups" and "we can restore to any millisecond since product launch.


Sure, but it seemed to be that any backups at all were being called too frivolous.


Consider applying for YC's Summer 2026 batch! Applications are open till May 4

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: