Hacker News Reader

Comment by eevilspock | Hacker News Reader

Do you have companies that focus on social good, or at least avoid things that are socially bad (e.g. advertising)?

Last year, we built this site: http://www.thecostofcarbon.org/, which was part of a project for Al Gore's climate change non-profit.

Currently, we're looking for devs for a company that helps museums keep track of their collections, another that makes it easier for people to cook healthy meals at home, and a third that's encouraging universities to incorporate 3d-printing into their curriculum.

So there's quite a bit of variety in the types of projects we take on. Social good is a vague concept that means different things to different people, but we can certainly try to match you with projects that fit your interests.

Why do you think advertising is socially bad? There are many products I would not have discovered without advertising.

It runs the gamut, of course -- someone's out there building an awesome campaign to advertise a blood drive, right now.

But most advertising basically using psychological tricks to push you to want & buy all kinds of stuff that really make a negligible difference in your quality of life, if they add anything at all.

Worse, the best way to convince you that you need X is to convince you that you have an X-shaped hole in your life. That desirable mates are looking for a [your gender] with X. That your neighbors/friends/colleagues/rivals have X, better X, newer X, etc. and are wondering about you.

It's not real, and it's actively harmful -- we find happiness/contentment by being self-aware, by learning what things really matter to us, and finding ways to focus on & improve those parts of our lives; this most commonly doesn't involve buying anything at all -- often it involves getting rid of a lot of stuff and leading a simpler life.

But who has time for clear thought and introspection, nowadays? By default advertisers want you distracted and discontented, your thoughts teeming with desires and urges, racing along on the hedonic treadmill....

Why do you think blood drives are good? Why wouldn't it be better if the standard thing was to pay for blood? If it was typical to pay donors for this kind of thing (organs too), wouldn't that better ensure plenty of supply than making charity the primary source?

There's a big debate about this, though it's a tangent to this discussion. But it boils down to how adding money into the equation tweaks the incentives of those giving blood or donating organs in a way that's not necessarily good.

One obvious way -- suppose you're filling out a medical history form before providing blood or an organ, and you know that ticking "yes" to a question will disqualify you. You really need the money -- will you be honest?

I for one hate it when companies spend money to inform me of products I might like, especially when it potentially saves me dozens of hours searching and doing research. It's the absolute worst when they spend time and money informing me of the features and benefits of their product rapidly and in a fashion where I can tune it out easily it it isn't relevant. Ive never once used brands as a signal to help me decide, nor bought a brand I know and trust like coke when traveling in a foreign area.

Advertising is just the worst, helping get information into the market efficiently, ugh!

Which category of companies do you think are more likely to be willing and able to pay >$100/hr? :)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com