Fighting Force &/or Fraud with Force &/or Fraud

[dalebert]

I'm continuing this discussion from the Anarchy In Your Head thread because I think it warrants discussion. I'm counterpointing, but I think Eli raises some interesting ideas warranting its own thread. He did apologize for hijacking the thread so this way there is no harm no foul in that regard.

Here's what started the discussion.

I've been telling people on the con comittee I work with that our google add should read "Don't click, just type farpointcon.com"  Probably violates TOS though.

And a more recent post followed by my response.

True.  But then we aren't talking about a person are we?  We're talking about a government sheltered corporation.  Did you ever even interact with a person in this transaction?  Sorry don't mean to highjack your thread.

I do have my issues with Google; no doubt about it. For one thing, they're supporting "net neutrality" which is a movement for more government intrusion into the Internet in complete contradiction to the name like many big government movements. It would give them a competitive advantage with the help of government force.

As for your question, I got a call from Google recently that lasted about 15 or 20 minutes where we went over my advertising goals and they offered me a free consultation to implement a more effective advertising campaign. I do think it was helpful. Obviously they want me to spend more money on advertising, but they also know (we talked about this) that I'm not going to continue a campaign that's not making me money so I can justify paying them that money. My max budget is $1 a day and they didn't suggest raising it. I think the combined time they spent to talk to me on the phone and create the ad campaign (a different person) was more than worth a month's worth of advertising, which is all the time I would likely give them to show that the ads are working. I think they're possibly in the hole if the ad campaign doesn't actually work for me. Even if I just break even, i.e. sell just enough to cover the ad campaign, it would essentially amount to free promotion. Most of my products have my logo/URL which would get seen more and the ads are driving people to my site and hopefully some of them will bookmark it or subscribe.

I guess I see what you mean. They have an incredible amount of power as a government-entrenched corporation and we have very little. It's tempting to use that to justify doing whatever we can to get a little back. I'm not personally comfortable with it though. I think I have to decide if I hate some of Google's tactics enough to just not deal with them at all, but if I decide to deal with them, I'll do it honestly. *shrug*

[Eli]

This reminds me of the should protesters respect private property thread.  My position on corporate property had been, by default to treat it like real private property.  I've never been comfortable with the position I encountered from black block types that vandalism wasn't violence.  I had a long argument about this in Philadelphia where some Starbucks windows got smashed.  I think it comes down to whether this tactic (advantageous to you, disadvantageous to google) actually violates your TOS/contract.  It wouldn't be wrong to do (and could actually drive more clicks from wiseasses) if it didn't violate your agreement.

On the other hand if you think of google like an actual business partner then you might want to minimiize actions that aren't win-win.  But that is more of a strategic call than a moral one.

[Eli]

Hmmm... didn't read your title before.  I'm not sure that the tactic I'm suggesting (a clever marketing ploy which might or might not save you/cost google) is on par with force.  Or even if limited liability is on par with force.

[dalebert]

Hmmm... didn't read your title before.  I'm not sure that the tactic I'm suggesting (a clever marketing ploy which might or might not save you/cost google) is on par with force.  Or even if limited liability is on par with force.

You're right. I compromised on a slightly nonspecific title to keep it simple. I thought about "Fight force with Fraud" or some such, but the idea was that the case you brought up is just one small example and I wanted to keep the discussion broad. I think fight fraud with fraud or force with fraud or whatever kind of falls within the boundaries of this discussion. Of course, whether it's actually fraud is also part of the discussion. Perhaps it isn't.

UPDATE: I changed the title.

[Jacobus]

I don't get it.  How is Google using force or fraud on you?  What exactly are you fighting?

[Eli]

Not sure the question applies to google in this case.  But I think both force and deception are valid responses to force and fraud.  There I pulled the pin.

[dalebert]

I don't get it.  How is Google using force or fraud on you?  What exactly are you fighting?

I'm glad you asked that. That's kind of the point. They haven't done anything to me specifically. My personal experience has been good so far. What we're addressing is more a generalization- the fact that they are lobbying for competitive advantages in a broader sense as just about every corporation does, only they're probably one of the worst perpetrators. Does that justify defrauding them in your interactions? Or if it's not fraud in a legal, technical way, does it justify sort of legal gymnastics of the sort that was mentioned? In this case- trying to get free ads by telling people to just type the URL rather than click, which is how Google gets paid for an ad.

[Jacobus]

Here is the test I would propose for you: let's assume you've gone ahead with the sneaky ad telling people to type the URL instead of clicking.  Then someone from Google calls you up one day and says something like "Why did you put up that ad?  We even gave you free consulting and you still went ahead with an ad that violates the agreement you signed."  What do you say in return?  How do you feel?

I would feel like a jerk, and I'd apologize and have no defense of my actions.  So if I were you, I would not put up the ad.

I also do not advocate sabotaging or defrauding companies that lobby government.  For one thing, it makes you look like the bad guy and the company the victim.  When I hear of people throwing bricks through Starbucks' windows, my sympathies go immediately to the manager, employees, and customers of the store.  What did they do to you?

It also does not seem like a healthy approach to me, either personally or for "the cause".  Boycott and withdrawal of support are better tools in my opinion.  For example, I've recently started buying meat at Whole Foods instead of my local supermarket because I think the way animals are treated at most meat processing facilities is wrong.  If I raised pigs or cattle I would not treat them that way, so I will no longer pay such companies to do something I would be morally opposed to.  But I won't try sabotaging or cheating those companies.

Also, think of an analogy with people.  Most companies lobby the government, but you could also consider individuals who vote and advocate government policies as doing the same.  Would you defraud such people?

[dalebert]

That's pretty much where I stand, Jacobus. You explained it pretty well. My thought is I either do business with Google or I don't. If I do business with them, I do it respectfully. If I get upset enough with them, then I should just stop doing business with them.

[John Edward Mercier]

I find the easiest way for me to determine if an action is acceptable to me is the Golden Rule. If I put myself in the place of the other party, how would I view the situation then?

[J’raxis 270145]

I find the easiest way for me to determine if an action is acceptable to me is the Golden Rule. If I put myself in the place of the other party, how would I view the situation then?

Usually a good determinant. Must be checked by the non-aggression principle, though—some people wouldn't mind force used against them if it was "for their own good," but that doesn't make it right, in my opinion.

[KBCraig]

I find the easiest way for me to determine if an action is acceptable to me is the Golden Rule. If I put myself in the place of the other party, how would I view the situation then?

I believe that's the first time I've given you +karma (I never smite).

That is indeed the standard we should uphold.

[Lloyd Danforth]

Ditto

[John Edward Mercier]

I find the easiest way for me to determine if an action is acceptable to me is the Golden Rule. If I put myself in the place of the other party, how would I view the situation then?

Usually a good determinant. Must be checked by the non-aggression principle, though—some people wouldn't mind force used against them if it was "for their own good," but that doesn't make it right, in my opinion.

For some reason, I can't think of an example of this.

[dalebert]

(I never smite).

That's been my policy for some time too. While I don't view smiting as anything other than free speech, it still feels like an abstract expression of my non-aggression principles to avoid it. If I applaud everyone else, it has a similar effect, yes? That's kind of how I see a voluntary society working. We wouldn't punish people for doing something we consider unacceptable. We would just choose not to help them or interact with them.

That seems to also be an effective way of training animals so maybe it's something intrinsic to our nature. A dog will respond very well to positive reinforcement to preferred behavior and simply no reinforcement at all for undesirable behavior. You should never hit your dog because you trigger a dog's defense mechanism, i.e. make it more aggressive. I've been watching dog training shows. Makes want a dog now. Oh well. Maybe when I've had some more allergy shots.