[ben_w]

> That would mean the death of at a minimum Meta (market cap $1.5 trln), most of Google (market cap $2.1 trln, lets say half would die).

And nothing of value was lost.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrFv1O4dbqY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSGVk2KVokQ

> So what, a couple trillion haircut on the US stock market, and more of a GDP hit than if the entire US military suddenly stopped getting funded.

Not even.

Market Cap is more like net worth than like GDP, GDP is more like annual revenue (both are still somewhat different, hence "more like") — Meta's global revenue is $164.5 billion, Alphabet's is $350.02 billion, so even if that's entirely in the USA (it isn't), and the money spent was purely positive-sum (it isn't), even combined that's less than the US military budget of $849.8 billion.

[lazide]

I guarantee you if Meta all the sudden couldn’t sell any ads tomorrow, it would be a lot more than a 1 trln GDP hit we’d experience.

[wizzwizz4]

If we'd lose so much GDP, without losing anything of value, perhaps GDP is not a useful measure of the economy.

[lazide]

Easy to say when you don’t have bills to pay.

[wizzwizz4]

GDP does not pay my bills.

[lazide]

If you participate in the economy or are dependent on anything related to taxes, it quite literally does pay your bills.

[Dylan16807]

If we're talking about removing one advertising platform, there is plenty of other stuff to spend money on. Even if the totals go down, I don't expect the average bystander to take a notable hit.

[ben_w]

I beleive the argument being made here is a map-territory distinction — certainly I myself see it this way.

I mean, their other comment was:

> If we'd lose so much GDP, without losing anything of value, perhaps GDP is not a useful measure of the economy.

Meta etc., can pay taxes on the profits made from connecting advertisers to eyeballs, but what actual value do they really provide? What real value gets created due to this, that would otherwise not be created? If Meta is just moving money around, without helping more stuff get made, then whatever measure says "Meta is good" is a poor measure. Even Meta's taxable income would just become someone else's higher profit or cheaper goods.

(But: I presume my belief that ads are zero-sum, or close to thst, is correct; perhaps this is untrue).

[ThrowawayR2]

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it." -Upton Sinclair

[relaxing]

I think there are other advertising channels that could pick up the slack.