As far as the characterization of capitalism as warfare, and the supposedly hidden nature thereof, and the sense on top of this that perhaps it is not—well, there are a lot of people in poverty who feel themselves on the wrong end of that gun. Should that seem a foreign notion, keep in mind that poverty is not a POV we come across so often, it not being the greatest of selling propositions in our evermore commercializing media. (Anybody here have a hand in that process?) But it is there, and common in circles that can’t really consider themselves on the winning side of any battle.

I can provide a further reading list, should you prove interested. Barbara Ehrenreich is a good place to start. And despite Scott’s best efforts to transcend dichotomies, a notion of capitalism as warfare will only stop presenting a “mutually destructive dichotomy” when it stops destroying one of the parties involved.

(And by the way, I never personally claimed poverty. Just the lack of proper resources to make Scott a decent offer. Well, we work with what we gots. Here, may I remind Scott, that’s five hundred cash dollars!!!!)

To put it simply, I like Scott. I want him on our side. Failing that, I’d love to get an idea of what sort of profits Lookery is actually pulling in, so I can decide just how much to keep fighting him. Then failing that, I’ll settle for a humor-based mildly antagonistic relationship based on mutual appreciation. But it is my third choice.

And now, I think I have to get back to actually writing this column, instead of commenting on it.

heart, anne

p.s. If we’re going to start throwing money around, I’d suggest the Harpswell Foundation Dormitory and Leadership Center for University Women, where I was working in Cambodia. They’re starting a $1.8 million capital campaign to fund their current dormitory and build a new one, to continue providing impoverished young women from the countryside a space to live and learn leadership skills while they attend school in Phnom Penh. (Making the 32 young women I worked with effectively the first large group of educated women in the history of a country that isn’t prepared to consider women’s rights.)

Scott makes a rare attempt to transcend this mutually destructive dichotomy by suggesting that a moral alliance might exist between AAA’s acts of cultural de-normalization and his economic manipulations. Anne blithely and sardonically refuses to consider this proposition, or at least makes no effort to understand it. And despite her protestations to the contrary, Anne is blatantly trying to “something somebody.” In this case, that somebody is Scott, and that something is an effort to tempt him into quitting his job by condescendingly dangling money in front of him. Such a token, tangibly valueless and presumably meant to christen and signify his liberation, is actually, by virtue of Anne’s self-professed poverty and concern for the welfare of the “real world,” a symbol of her sacrifice, and validation of her liberation at his expense. Anne may have sent the Trojan Horse back through the gates with another inside, but a Trojan Horse inside itself resembles the Matryoshka doll; it divides, it never reveals, and it goes on forever.

The AAA will match Anne’s offer and add some. If you quit Lookery, we’ll pool our money together and send over a check for $500. I know it’s not much, but it’s really just a token – for this reason, I will also make a giant, 3 foot long check to present to you. You do seem like a very smart guy and if this small incentive can encourage you to start on an endeavor for the public good, we’re happy to provide the support.

–Steve

I wish ever moreso that we’d met in person now.

Let me start by noting that I’m extremely confused by your very last comment, before “RSVP”. I’m not trying to anything anybody, although I’m impressed you imply I may be having that effect. Thank you! Mostly, FYI, I just write what I think, with this overblown sense of entitlement that I feel to do so based entirely on my love of America.

And I guess I’d apologize for the Trojan Horse comment it If’d made it originally, but I didn’t. I did find it oddly aggressive, that’s for sure. You should feel insulted, and should hunt down that Ad Age CEO. That guy’s a jerk.

Also, I’m not sure that you can call Facebook Social and Beacon Ads privacy-friendly, as they are still creating algorithms that target information to individuals based on their personal information; whether or not that information is kept on file for future use may be a different issue. I mean, I guess we can argue that environment is still friendly to privacy, but is it “private”? I kinda don’t think so.

I further agree that time-wasting’s a part of the human condition, and I have no problem with it, done for any purpose, greater or not. But creating a time-wasting proposition intended to ultimately forward consumer goods, in turn done to create a profit? Hmmm. There are a lot more things worth working on.

Which brings me, Scott, to my proposition. You seem to be implying that you aren’t in this for the money: is it not a profitable field? I’d love to hear specific numbers: what did Lookery pull in from all this Facebook business that had people so up in arms for the few short hours people are up in arms about anythng these days?

The point is, Scott, I want you to quit Lookery. I will send you $100 to do this right now. Seriously. You seem like a smart dude, and I think the real world could use you. Let me know where to PayPal or send a check. I’m totally broke but this is completely worth the investment.

heart, aem

p.s. I have no idea what’s wrong with the democratic party, but I can’t imagine you’re the worst of it. Those people are crazy.

I’m the guy that included your pic with “Yeah, what she said” in his slides at Push the Future in Minneapolis last July. Interestingly, I’m also co-founder/CEO of Lookery. I don’t know if you’d connected the two.

I may be self-deluded, but I think the situation is not so black-and- white as you portray (and yes, that means I’m what’s wrong with the Democratic Party).

We got involved with this last July because we knew a lot of very cool geeks with fun new social apps who couldn’t pay for their own servers. They were drowning in Facebook users and couldn’t pay their bills. We’ve set up a couple different programs to make it straightforward for people to keep coding and ignore the ad side if they like, and I feel more than OK about that. I’m not claiming Facebook ads are socially redeeming, but timekillers are part of the human condition.

I agree that some of the ads we display fall into the realm of visually invasive, but where Lookery may not meet the more societally disturbing aspects of your Trojan Horse spec. A number of the social network ad folks are working on systems that take detailed profile information and really try to get in your knickers with a scarily targeted ad. We don’t and won’t. Our system has no Personally Identifying Information as the FTC calls it. We specifically avoid having enough info to to figure out who you really are.

It isn’t because we’re angels, for better or worse. We just think that sort of thing is a money-losing proposition for a whole host of reasons. The companies that are doing the highly detailed stuff are trying to convince Madison Avenue that social network pages are worth a ton of money with careful targeting. There’s no proof that they are correct, and we believe that they are flat-out wrong. The majority of Facebook apps are fun distractions, and incredibly suboptimal places to put high-dollar ads. We’re just building a biz that runs cheaply by avoiding invasive marketing tactics, which are very costly. The only profitable approach in this arena is with minimally invasive, i.e. truly anonymous and privacy-friendly, targeting info.

Unlike other startups I’ve done, Lookery isn’t purely First Amendment reinforcement as a commercial proposition. However, I’m pretty sure the people we’ll make squirm economically are the same people you seek to “de-normalize” culturally.

RSVP.