Most active commenters
  • _DeadFred_(3)

←back to thread

Google stops letting sites like Forbes rule search for "Best CBD Gummies"

(arstechnica.com)
214 points pseudolus | 16 comments | 20 Nov 24 21:07 UTC | HN request time: 1.067s | source | bottom
1. akira2501 ◴[20 Nov 24 22:08 UTC] No.42198624[source]▶
An entire department was just rendered useless. I genuinely don't feel bad.
replies(3): >>42198645 #>>42198780 #>>42198825 #
2. kasey_junk ◴[20 Nov 24 22:11 UTC] No.42198645[source]▶
Was probably a whole company right? Pretty good argument that Forbes the traditional media property and Forbes the seo giant are 2 different things: https://larslofgren.com/forbes-marketplace/
replies(1): >>42199128 #
3. readyplayernull ◴[20 Nov 24 22:28 UTC] No.42198780[source]▶
I wouldn't be surprised of the whole thing being automated.
4. _DeadFred_ ◴[20 Nov 24 22:32 UTC] No.42198825[source]▶
It was funny watching the warrior whatever site back in the day when Panda came along. Love when these people get their horrible business models kneecapped.

Now let's make corporate stock manipulation illegal again and ban corporate stock buybacks. Talk about a purely manipulative business strategy.

replies(2): >>42198845 #>>42200247 #
5. red_trumpet ◴[20 Nov 24 22:34 UTC] No.42198845[source]▶
What's the problem with stock buybacks?
replies(3): >>42198921 #>>42198951 #>>42199483 #
6. mathgeek ◴[20 Nov 24 22:45 UTC] No.42198921{3}[source]▶
Couple articles that explore that:

https://hbr.org/2020/01/why-stock-buybacks-are-dangerous-for...

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/07/are-stock-...

7. notyourwork ◴[20 Nov 24 22:49 UTC] No.42198951{3}[source]▶
Nothing directly, it just sounds bad at face value.
replies(1): >>42199488 #
8. fakedang ◴[20 Nov 24 23:14 UTC] No.42199128[source]▶
And Forbes the SEO giant was going to buy out the legacy media property.
9. _DeadFred_ ◴[20 Nov 24 23:57 UTC] No.42199483{3}[source]▶
They are nothing but direct stock manipulation that was 'legalized' at the same time where executive compensation was moved from salary to... stock, so that you end up with a quasi-legal (stock manipulation by executives is supposed to be illegal) corrupt incentives system.
replies(1): >>42199576 #
10. _DeadFred_ ◴[20 Nov 24 23:58 UTC] No.42199488{4}[source]▶
'Stock manipulation is cool, especially when you change executives pay structure to be based purely on said manipulation. Totally creates healthy incentives not perverse ones.'
replies(2): >>42199861 #>>42200338 #
11. quickthrowman ◴[21 Nov 24 00:09 UTC] No.42199576{4}[source]▶
Two things:

-Stock buybacks are not manipulation, they’re simply a way to return cash to shareholders and then the shareholder decides when to incur tax liability. A company is well within its rights to issue additional shares or buy back and destroy shares at their discretion. It’s functionally equivalent to a dividend without a taxable event.

-Corporate boards award stock grants to executives because they want management to be aligned with shareholders. I think executive compensation is excessive, but stock grants do align management and shareholders.

replies(1): >>42199770 #
12. chipsrafferty ◴[21 Nov 24 00:36 UTC] No.42199770{5}[source]▶
Dilution is immoral and unfair to investors. If a company wants to raise money they should have to sell shares they own, not print more and sell those.
replies(1): >>42200380 #
13. notyourwork ◴[21 Nov 24 00:46 UTC] No.42199861{5}[source]▶
Sorry, buy backs are not stock manipulation. Let's step back from emotions and political skew. A company is able to take their capital and deploy it how they see fit. This can include purchasing percentage ownership of their company back from stockholders. Whether or not you agree doesn't make it manipulation in the general sense. It's just a way for a company to use their money.
14. scarface_74 ◴[21 Nov 24 01:51 UTC] No.42200247[source]▶
The company is giving money back to shareholders. What exactly is wrong with that?
15. l33t7332273 ◴[21 Nov 24 02:05 UTC] No.42200338{5}[source]▶
It’s a way to return money to share holders.
16. l33t7332273 ◴[21 Nov 24 02:14 UTC] No.42200380{6}[source]▶
I think it’s kind of up to the investors what is unfair for them.