undefined | Better HN

0 pointsdietr1ch5mo ago0 comments

1. It makes sense that the business are the ones paying to get listed and vetted. We are now starting to need those blue checkmarks for a reason, some verification process is necessary, and then serving costs.

2. Why? You wouldn't search by business name, but by need. What about "nearby bakeries" or "pop soda" only benefits the better known brands? Indexing by name isn't the only way.

0 comments

dangus5mo ago

For #1 I think the idea basically violates the idea of banning advertising.

For #2, I think that established brands essentially wouldn’t need to be searched for.

In the status quo I can pay to put up a billboard next to McDonald’s and say “I make a better burger two blocks down.”

But if I’m not allowed to do that a lot of people will just assume that McDonald’s is the place to go for a fast food burger.

dietr1chOP5mo ago

1. No, it puts people in control of when they query the index instead of spamming everywhere eyesight could possibly stare at.

2. That's fine, you want something new or something you don't know where to get? Query an index. You want the good ol' experience? Go for what you already know well.

If you worry about the people who would never discover anything new, then it's like they don't talk to anybody or have no desire of changing anything, but that's their decision.

dangus5mo ago

What if the “good old experience” is Microsoft in the late 1990s with a nearly 100% marketshare? You don’t know anyone who uses another system and you assume that all other options either don’t exist or can’t possibly be as good. There’s almost zero word of mouth and you haven’t bothered to consult a directory since you’re 100% confident that the only operating system in the world is Windows [1]

Do you not recognize how this scenario can work to preserve monopolies?

How does Apple come back from the brink of bankruptcy without their iconic iMac and iPod marketing campaigns?

And how do you flip the switch to making advertising illegal when incumbent companies have already enjoyed the benefit of legal advertising for hundreds of years? We ban advertising, and I start my new soft drink company, but Coca-Cola got to advertise for 100+ years already. The cat has been out of the bag for thousands of years.

[1] https://www.overclock.net/threads/teacher-calls-linux-%E2%80...

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

dangus5mo ago

For #1 I think the idea basically violates the idea of banning advertising.

For #2, I think that established brands essentially wouldn’t need to be searched for.

In the status quo I can pay to put up a billboard next to McDonald’s and say “I make a better burger two blocks down.”

But if I’m not allowed to do that a lot of people will just assume that McDonald’s is the place to go for a fast food burger.

dietr1chOP5mo ago

1. No, it puts people in control of when they query the index instead of spamming everywhere eyesight could possibly stare at.

2. That's fine, you want something new or something you don't know where to get? Query an index. You want the good ol' experience? Go for what you already know well.

If you worry about the people who would never discover anything new, then it's like they don't talk to anybody or have no desire of changing anything, but that's their decision.

dangus5mo ago

Do you not recognize how this scenario can work to preserve monopolies?

How does Apple come back from the brink of bankruptcy without their iconic iMac and iPod marketing campaigns?

[1] https://www.overclock.net/threads/teacher-calls-linux-%E2%80...

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse