The blog post "What if we made advertising illegal?" explores the potential societal benefits of a world without advertising. It argues that advertising manipulates consumers, fuels overconsumption and unsustainable growth, promotes harmful products, and pollutes public spaces and our minds. By eliminating advertising, the author suggests we could reclaim public space, reduce consumption and waste, foster more meaningful cultural production, and encourage healthier lifestyles. This shift would necessitate new funding models for media and cultural institutions, potentially leading to more diverse and democratic forms of content creation.
Jason Bosco's post celebrates the milestone of his company, SendGrid, achieving profitability instead of relying on venture capital funding. He emphasizes the deliberate choice to prioritize building a sustainable and profitable business from the ground up, highlighting the benefits of controlling their own destiny and focusing on customer needs. This approach, while potentially slower in terms of rapid scaling, allowed them to build a stronger foundation and ultimately led to a more rewarding outcome in the long run. The post implicitly contrasts the often pressured, growth-at-all-costs mentality of VC-backed startups with SendGrid's more measured, organic path to success.
HN commenters largely discussed the merits and drawbacks of bootstrapping vs. VC funding. Several pointed out the inherent bias in Jason Bosco's original tweet, noting that he's incentivized to promote bootstrapping as a founder of a bootstrapped company. Others argued that profitability allows for more control and long-term vision, while VC funding enables faster growth, albeit with potential pressure to prioritize investor returns over other goals. Some users shared personal experiences with both models, highlighting the trade-offs involved. A few questioned the longevity of Bosco's "forever company" aspiration in a constantly evolving market. The idea of "ramen profitable," where founders earn just enough to survive, was also discussed as a viable alternative to both VC funding and robust profitability.
The "Cowboys and Drones" analogy describes two distinct operational approaches for small businesses. "Cowboys" are reactive, improvisational, and prioritize action over meticulous planning, often thriving in dynamic, unpredictable environments. "Drones," conversely, are methodical, process-driven, and favor pre-planned strategies, excelling in stable, predictable markets. Neither approach is inherently superior; the optimal choice depends on the specific business context, industry, and competitive landscape. A successful business can even blend elements of both, strategically applying cowboy tactics for rapid response to unexpected opportunities while maintaining a drone-like structure for core operations.
HN commenters largely agree with the author's distinction between "cowboy" and "drone" businesses. Some highlighted the importance of finding a balance between the two approaches, noting that pure "cowboy" can be unsustainable while pure "drone" stifles innovation. One commenter suggested "cowboy" mode is better suited for initial product development, while "drone" mode is preferable for scaling and maintenance. Others pointed out external factors like regulations and competition can influence which mode is more appropriate. A few commenters shared anecdotes of their own experiences with each mode, reinforcing the article's core concepts. Several also debated the definition of "lifestyle business," with some associating it negatively with lack of ambition, while others viewed it as a valid choice prioritizing personal fulfillment.
Scott Galloway's "Addiction Economy" argues that major tech platforms, like Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, and YouTube, are deliberately engineered to be addictive. They exploit human vulnerabilities, using persuasive design and algorithms optimized for engagement, not well-being. This "attention arbitrage" model prioritizes maximizing user time and data collection, which are then monetized through targeted advertising. Galloway compares these platforms to cigarettes, highlighting their negative impact on mental health, productivity, and societal discourse, while also acknowledging their utility and the difficulty of regulation. He concludes that these companies have become too powerful and calls for greater awareness, stricter regulations, and individual responsibility in managing our relationship with these addictive technologies.
HN commenters largely agree with Galloway's premise that many tech companies intentionally engineer their products to be addictive. Several point out the manipulative nature of infinite scroll and notification systems, designed to keep users engaged even against their better interests. Some users offer personal anecdotes of struggling with these addictive qualities, while others discuss the ethical implications for designers and the broader societal impact. A few commenters suggest potential solutions, including stricter regulations and encouraging digital minimalism. Some disagreement exists on whether the responsibility lies solely with the companies or also with the users' lack of self-control. A compelling comment thread explores the parallels between social media addiction and gambling addiction, referencing similar psychological mechanisms and profit motives. Another interesting discussion revolves around the difficulty in defining "addiction" in this context and whether the term is being overused.
The original poster is exploring alternative company structures, specifically cooperatives (co-ops), for a SaaS business and seeking others' experiences with this model. They're interested in understanding the practicalities, benefits, and drawbacks of running a SaaS as a co-op, particularly concerning attracting investment, distributing profits, and maintaining developer motivation. They wonder if the inherent democratic nature of co-ops might hinder rapid decision-making, a crucial aspect of the competitive SaaS landscape. Essentially, they're questioning whether the co-op model is compatible with the demands of building and scaling a successful SaaS company.
Several commenters on the Hacker News thread discuss their experiences with or thoughts on alternative company models for SaaS, particularly co-ops. Some express skepticism about the scalability of co-ops for SaaS due to the capital-intensive nature of the business and the potential difficulty in attracting and retaining top talent without competitive salaries and equity. Others share examples of successful co-ops, highlighting the benefits of shared ownership, democratic decision-making, and profit-sharing. A few commenters suggest hybrid models, combining aspects of co-ops with traditional structures to balance the need for both stability and shared benefits. Some also point out the importance of clearly defining roles and responsibilities within a co-op to avoid common pitfalls. Finally, several comments emphasize the crucial role of shared values and a strong commitment to the co-op model for long-term success.
Summary of Comments ( 1042 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43595269
HN users generally support the idea of banning or heavily regulating advertising, citing its manipulative nature, negative impact on mental health, contribution to consumerism, and distortion of media. Some propose alternative funding models for media and other services, such as subscriptions, micropayments, or public funding. Several commenters acknowledge the difficulty of implementing such a ban, particularly given the entrenched power of the advertising industry and the potential for black markets. A few dissenting voices argue that advertising plays a vital role in informing consumers and supporting free services, and that a ban would be overly restrictive and harmful to the economy. Several discuss the potential unintended consequences of such a drastic measure.
The Hacker News post "What if we made advertising illegal?" generated a lively discussion with a variety of perspectives on the potential impacts of such a ban. Several commenters explored the practical implications and unintended consequences.
One compelling line of discussion revolved around the definition of "advertising" and the difficulty of drawing a clear line. Commenters debated whether things like movie trailers, book reviews, or even open-source project announcements would be considered advertising under a hypothetical ban. This led to concerns about censorship and restrictions on free speech. Some suggested that a ban might be too broad and could stifle innovation and the spread of information. Others proposed narrower definitions focused on manipulative or misleading advertising practices.
Another key theme was the potential impact on the funding of free services. Many commenters pointed out that advertising revenue supports many websites, apps, and other services that people rely on. They questioned how these services would be funded in the absence of advertising, with suggestions ranging from subscriptions and donations to government funding. Some expressed skepticism about the viability of these alternatives, particularly for smaller or niche platforms.
Several commenters discussed the potential benefits of an ad-free world, such as reduced consumerism, less cluttered online experiences, and decreased exposure to potentially harmful or misleading information. However, others argued that advertising plays a valuable role in informing consumers about products and services and driving competition.
Some commenters also explored historical examples of advertising bans or restrictions, such as the ban on tobacco advertising. They debated the effectiveness of these measures and their relevance to a broader advertising ban.
A few comments touched on the potential for black markets and other unintended consequences, such as the rise of influencer marketing or other forms of disguised advertising.
Overall, the comments on Hacker News reflect a complex and nuanced understanding of the role of advertising in society. While some expressed support for a ban, many others raised concerns about its feasibility and potential negative consequences. The discussion highlighted the need for careful consideration of the definition of advertising and the potential impacts on various stakeholders, including consumers, businesses, and the media.