[elago]

This reasoning leads to praising blackhat SEO, spammers, ICO scammers, etc. I'm sure they do plenty of technically clever things. And they also make plenty of money, therefore via economic theory they're a valuable asset to our community, unlike those marginally useless teachers and social workers.

[throwawaymath]

My reasoning doesn't lead to anything you've mentioned. Your characterization of what I said is so uncharitable it's difficult for me to believe you're engaging with my point honestly and in good faith. However...assuming you've honestly trying to discuss this: you're mistaking my real point for support of maximal capitalism.

I'm not saying the intrinsic "worth" of an individual or a company to society is determined by how much profit they generate. That may or may not be the case, but it's a sideshow to what I'm really talking about. I'm saying that it's disrespectful and intellectually lazy to dismiss someone else's work (and implicitly, any fulfillment they may derive from it) because it's technically challenging but not saving the world. It's also implicitly narcissistic, because it makes the critic an ideological arbiter of the worth of other people's professions. The critic should spend more time focusing on being the change they want to see in the world rather than griefing the work of other people.

The examples you provided - blackhat SEO, ICO scammers, spam - are criminal behaviors that undermine society. The examples I used in my template are not. They can cause harm, like most activities, but they are not designed specifically to do so. That makes your examples incomparable as a rebuttal.

At this point it's likely that someone will be incensed by this last point and jump in with a lovely deconstruction of advertising or financial trading that asserts, "No, it actually is a net negative for society!" I'm not going to engage in debating that point because it's not going to go anywhere and it's not directly relevant to my point. Armchair economists have been reinventing "better" financial theory from first principles for years on Hacker News, and focusing on that particular example is a red herring.

[elago]

Thank you for the response and engaging with me. I'm sorry you were insulted, I should have written a longer reply and left less room for reading between the lines.

I'd really enjoy diving a little deeper into this, and really hope I'm not coming across as combative.

Take the "blackhat" away from SEO, take the "scam" away from ICO, replace "spam" with "effective viral marketers". All of those are technically challenging but not necessarily changing the world. By your reply's 2nd paragraph, I'm assuming you will withhold judgement on these individuals/professions?

Otherwise, would you mind explaining the distinction? The only difference I see is Jane St et al are established with massive amounts of capital, vs being the little guy. I don't wish to offend you again but it seems by calling them criminal/detriment to society you are passing the same judgement that I am on large financial firms?

Aren't high frequency traders and big funds always toeing the line between legitimate behavior market manipulation?

Finally, call me narcissistic if you wish but I am a human not a Vulcan. I can't help pass judgement and say those who willingly pass up easy money to selflessly do poorly compensated hard work to help those less fortunate and make society a more harmonious place DO deserve my praise more than some interns on the way to potentially being the next Martin Shrekli. I think the world needs more of these people and they're certainly not being compensated with money so I want to do what I can to compensate them with social capital.

And finally, I'll repeat that I don't mean to troll or cause offense to you. I'm gracious for the opportunity to engage with you and learn different opinions rather than stay in my echo chamber/filter bubble.

[a1369209993]

> advertising, data mining}

Advertising and Facebook-style spyware deployment[0] are behaviors that undermine society, and are only not criminal due to blatant goverment corruption and, if you want to be overly charitable, being too novel for law to have caught up with. They may not be designed for the express purpose of causing harm, but neither are blackhat SEO, or, for example, shoplifting.

Ironically, your original point was a good one; high frequency trading is fairly clearly positive and certainly not inherently negative. (I don't think anyone believes they're making optimal use of their talents for the betterment of humanity or whatever similar goal, but that's a unreasonably high standard when we're also discussing advertisers and SEO.)

0: Which is what people I've talked to use "data mining" to refer to, although I'm not sure if that's what you meant.