221–230 of 462 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is available on the condition that you are served ads alongside content.
Is that in their EULA?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When you allow targeted ads into your life, you're putting changes in your behavior on the market each time you touch a device. Those behavior changes are intended to make you give the buyer more money than they paid. The market will find every flaw in your psychology that can be used to take money from your pocket. These flaws exist: Las Vegas is built on them. Targeted ads are the Las Vegas of the mind.
That's all well and good, but a key distinction here is that you are using Facebook for absolutely no out-of-pocket expenditure. Going to Vegas costs actual dollars. I suppose a stark, diametric alternative to being forced to view targeted ads would be Facebook as a paid subscription service. It's the age old issue of 'Someone has to pay for this party.'
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When you allow targeted ads into your life, you're putting changes in your behavior on the market each time you touch a device. Those behavior changes are intended to make you give the buyer more money than they paid. The market will find every flaw in your psychology that can be used to take money from your pocket. These flaws exist: Las Vegas is built on them. Targeted ads are the Las Vegas of the mind.
That's all well and good, but a key distinction here is that you are using Facebook for absolutely no out-of-pocket expenditure. Going to Vegas costs actual dollars. I suppose a stark, diametric alternative to being forced to view targeted ads would be Facebook as a paid subscription service. It's the age old issue of 'Someone has to pay for this party.'
Walmart is free to open a business and allow people off the street to shop there, browse their wares, and buy stuff if they want. They cannot force people to buy something for the privilege of visiting, and while they could require a "cover charge" to enter, they're probably going to lose most of their customers if they do this. It's Walmart's job to attract people into the store, and then attempt to convince them to buy stuff when they're in there.
Other shops are the same, and small shops are probably an even better example: while most people will probably buy something in a Walmart if they take the time to go in there, if you check out some weird little specialty shop you happen to walk by in a shopping district, it's quite likely you're not going to buy anything in there.
Someone has to pay for that little shop's rent and utilities and salaries, but that's the concern of the shopkeeper, not the customers. If the shopkeeper wants to stay in business, he'll figure out how to get enough customers to buy stuff to keep the doors open. If he fails, too bad so sad. It's not the customers' fault for not buying enough stuff, it's his fault for not having good enough stuff to buy, having too-high prices, having crappy service, having a poor location or operating hours, having an ugly or dirty shop, having annoying workers, etc.
It's no different with websites. It's their job to figure out how to make money on the site, not yours. If they want to show annoying ads, that's their right. If you want to block those ads (just like refusing to look at aisle displays in Walmart), that's your right. If they don't like that, they can ask you to leave, just like a shopkeeper can ask you to leave. But if your browser makes a request, and their website services that request, then they are not asking you to leave, they're inviting you in. As long as sites don't turn away my browser requests, I consider myself welcome at their sites, even with my ad-blocking. If they (like Forbes) refuse to show me the site/article because of my ad-blocker, then I either leave or disable the blocker, depending on my whim (usually I just leave).
I offer a sincere apology; I never expected that introducing "Boz" to computers and programming during our time in 4-H could lead to Facebook and the damage it has done to society. Maybe he would have ended up the same. Maybe learning BASIC in my 4-H programming project was insignificant in the long term. I just wish I wasn't responsible, even in a tiny way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Serious question: Why do you block FB ads? I wouldn't say that FB ads are any more disguised as content as, say, newspaper ads. And follow up: If FB decided to shut down some features to ad-blocking users, do you think that would be unfair?
Users running adblockers likely wouldn't click the ads anyway, so I don't really see the problem. That some advertisers think they should pay by impression and not by click is their own stupidity.
Pretty much any advertiser who spends major money on TV is going for impressions - clicks have no real meaning and are merely a bonus.
For instance, think Coke ads - the objective is to create a certain brand association in your mind by showing you imagery in advertising. Your clicking and buying Coke the instant you see an ad is not an objective. They want to make sure you choose Coke when you buy cola, perhaps even think that you are a "Coke person" rather than Pepsi person.
A lot of money out there in the advertising business is ther for this kind of business objective.
They are welcome to try. And I am welcome to try harder to block them. As long as they don't try to force some sort of legislation on how people can use their internet connection, and their internet browser to fetch and display content, there's no problem. The real problem is Facebook is already full of advertising disguised as content. From sponsored posts to content from things you "like". So I'm kind of surprised…
Serious question: Why do you block FB ads? I wouldn't say that FB ads are any more disguised as content as, say, newspaper ads. And follow up: If FB decided to shut down some features to ad-blocking users, do you think that would be unfair?
tl;dw: Advertisers are untrustworthy and act in bad faith. Once we give them an inch, they take a mile. If you met a person like that, would you continue to socialize with them? I wouldn't
Why not just allow users to pay to not see ads? It's a crazy idea, but it just might work. Hulu's getting a lot more from me per month for their ad-free tier than they could ever dream of getting from me for ads with my watching habits, probably at least an order of magnitude more.
The only reasons I see some people who're concerned about privacy using FB are because there is no better alternative and it's hard to move your network out, even if it's only for specific circles of people in your life.
They are welcome to try. And I am welcome to try harder to block them. As long as they don't try to force some sort of legislation on how people can use their internet connection, and their internet browser to fetch and display content, there's no problem. The real problem is Facebook is already full of advertising disguised as content. From sponsored posts to content from things you "like". So I'm kind of surprised…
Serious question: Why do you block FB ads? I wouldn't say that FB ads are any more disguised as content as, say, newspaper ads. And follow up: If FB decided to shut down some features to ad-blocking users, do you think that would be unfair?
Besides scrolling through your feed, is there much you do on FB? It's just a news aggregation site now.
They are welcome to try. And I am welcome to try harder to block them. As long as they don't try to force some sort of legislation on how people can use their internet connection, and their internet browser to fetch and display content, there's no problem. The real problem is Facebook is already full of advertising disguised as content. From sponsored posts to content from things you "like". So I'm kind of surprised…
> They are welcome to try. And I am welcome to try harder to block them. Technically, Facebook could insert news feed ads like a post from one of your friend (assume that the friend has liked some page or organization). It could be tough to distinguish between ads and posts much like native advertising.