[stickfigure]

I hear this kind of thing repeated here a lot, but I have to ask - what percentage of the engineering staff at Google and Facebook directly work on advertising? I would be shocked if it was as high as 10%. "The sheer amount of work gone to optimize ad clicking" is pretty damn small compared to the tech economy, let alone the whole economy.

It may be funded by advertising, but Search is incredibly useful. And Facebook keeps me in touch with my extended friend circle, which as far as I'm concerned is an unconditional social good. Most of the people working on those products aren't working on the advertising part. And if a small percentage are, well, you can't fully optimize every system of humans.

I don't think this argument holds water.

[andrewjl]

Why does the distinction of direct vs indirect matter when the question is about opportunity costs of deploying talent to potentially more fruitful endeavors?

[stickfigure]

Because a search engine that almost always finds what you are looking for is a fruitful endeavor. A website that lets me keep up with my extended friend circle is a fruitful endeavor. A website full of educational videos (and yes, a lot of mindless entertainment) is a fruitful endeavor.

By focusing on how they are funded, you're losing track of the fact that these companies provide incredibly valuable services.

[disgruntledphd2]

> what percentage of the engineering staff at Google and Facebook directly work on advertising? I would be shocked if it was as high as 10%

It's probably less than that, in engineering. The real headcount numbers for advertising are in sales and sales operations.