Working for Google and Facebook has other ethical implications…. but that’s not what I was referring to.

> huge demand

That’s my point.

Stop working for those small and big businesses in need of pushing solutions to problems they invented.

Tho, you seem to imply an ideological/apologetical take on the economy, which isn’t exactly helpful, in any case. The tautology “it exists because it exists” can comfortably offer absolution for anything and anyone, because no one is in control, no one has responsibility. I get the appeal for coping, but it’s a self-fulfilling-prophecy at best, religious glorification of apathy at worst. It is not, however, the inherent nature of things.

> Stop working for those small and big businesses in need of pushing solutions to problems they invented.

I've been trying to think of examples, but it's difficult.

Google originally thrived because its Search engine pushed a solution for a well-established problem. It's ad business solved a problem for advertisers - and site operators who wanted things simplified. Even Facebook offered a way for people to keep in touch using a medium more convenient than e-mail.

I don’t believe you.

Landfills rapidly filling with last year’s “innovation“ and people getting increasingly dissatisfied with their jobs, because they lost touch with the actual product they are allegedly working on, should be an indication on a larger scale…

Apart from all those wonders of petrol-chemistry, like fast-fashion: Short smartphone cycles with minuscule improvements; Uber and food delivery services offering nothing, but minor convenience in exchange for a race to the bottom in worker exploitation (very genius. such innovation.); e-scooter sharing services disposing LiPo batteries in every larger city’s water bodies; X as a service; everyone having advice for sale; every fart commercially exploited…

Sorry, I really don’t believe you, if you tell me you haven’t noticed the economy getting high on its own supply. C’mon, whole sectors are “content creation” and engagement manufacturing for the sake of selling ads, or creating yet another f2p mobile game optimized for getting the kidz addicted.

I mean, just turn off adblock and see for yourself. Someone made all that shit!

Google doesn't sell scooters and food delivery -- other companies do, and advertise about that via Google.

Google's ads service is something those companies (the advertisers) want.

And at the same time, Google has been acting unethically.

Not sure what you are trying to tell me.

We agree that much of what Google does is bad, but your solution both doesn't seem like it gets to the core of the issue, and moreover I can't actually think of a company that meets your threshold - it would be stupid for a company to produce a product that nobody wants.

I disagree. Production is cheap, more so for digital services, you can very well make shit nobody wants and then use advertising and marketing to produce demand.

And of course ‘wanting’ is ambiguous. There is a difference between impulsive desire and a cold-headed need. Heroin users also “want” the drug; gambling addicts “want” the gems in the f2p game’s store; people “want” the fantasy of beauty and success on social media, or fast-fashion’s first impression. People “want” sugar, love, attention, pleasure and safety/security in a way that’s disconnected to their modern actual needs. We are wired a certain way, adapted to natural scarcity and threat, and marketing and sales know this.

The abstraction of rational actors and beneficial, self-regulatory markets are evidently wrong for the most part, as we do know today. Everyone who says otherwise is driven by dogma and ideology, not scientific insights and recognition of our past’s experiments. Advertisement itself should make people question their ideas about the economy.

So by "want" you mean what a central actor (or maybe just you?) decides is a legitimate want and what is not a real want that is worthy of satisfying?

You can do better.