71–80 of 171 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why? Because it will self-regulate? Because people will vote with their wallets? That's how we got leaded gasoline for 60+ years.
Leaded gasoline and the Internet are hardly comparable. But go ahead and make straw man arguments.
How are they not comparable? The incentives are not aligned: corporate profit vs the commons.
I am beginning to believe that advertising (at all, on any medium) is an evil we need to do without. The "free stuff" that we get in return is never without consequences, as we're finding out. The "hey we built a thing you might want to buy" function can be done in different forms, better, I think. Probably by newspapers. I think we could start by taxing all advertising revenue by, say, 50%.
Advertising is turning into a paperclip maximizing machine that tends to grow relative to total market.
As we get efficient with other parts of the economy and "grow the pie", mind-share remains zero-sum.
Without something changing, advertising will tend to eat all the productivity gains so we can show more ads to people. This is insidious and benefits no one.
I am beginning to believe that advertising (at all, on any medium) is an evil we need to do without. The "free stuff" that we get in return is never without consequences, as we're finding out. The "hey we built a thing you might want to buy" function can be done in different forms, better, I think. Probably by newspapers. I think we could start by taxing all advertising revenue by, say, 50%.
I am beginning to believe that advertising (at all, on any medium) is an evil we need to do without. The "free stuff" that we get in return is never without consequences, as we're finding out. The "hey we built a thing you might want to buy" function can be done in different forms, better, I think. Probably by newspapers. I think we could start by taxing all advertising revenue by, say, 50%.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Leaded gasoline and the Internet are hardly comparable. But go ahead and make straw man arguments.
Corporate malfeasance with corporate malfeasance. How are they not comparable? The incentives are not aligned: corporate profit vs the commons.
The fact that more people use Gmail than Protonmail / others is a testament to their willingness to trade their eyeballs on ads for a service they don't have to spend their monetary resources on.
It's also worth asking - what makes you so confident about an absence of malfeasance from the largest, unbreakable corporate entity (ie. the government)?
I am beginning to believe that advertising (at all, on any medium) is an evil we need to do without. The "free stuff" that we get in return is never without consequences, as we're finding out. The "hey we built a thing you might want to buy" function can be done in different forms, better, I think. Probably by newspapers. I think we could start by taxing all advertising revenue by, say, 50%.
Taking away that "free stuff" is not without consequence either. Now people without means can't read the news, watch tv, connect with friends and family online, play casual games, etc. Are ads more evil than taking away free access for those without the means to pay?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is plenty of price comparison websites that one can use right now that allow one to search for a specific product and compare price offers. One would search for a massage chair on there and find that some are cheaper than others and read the reviews to make an educated guess about whether the extra price is worth it.
So, still ads but different name. These price engines (every one I've seen) are all affiliate hubs; they list only products that pay for the click. Any reviews on such sites are biased in similar ways to the gaming in reviews in major sites like Amazon. Now, one could say, "so what? Most folks know that, useful info still, and it's better than ads!". But is it? At least the ad is an overt block of color, but affiliat…
I haven’t heard anyone suggest we ban distributors.
I am beginning to believe that advertising (at all, on any medium) is an evil we need to do without. The "free stuff" that we get in return is never without consequences, as we're finding out. The "hey we built a thing you might want to buy" function can be done in different forms, better, I think. Probably by newspapers. I think we could start by taxing all advertising revenue by, say, 50%.
—Banksy
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While it would be awesome to have hardware that did the heavy lifting, I don't like the incentives for commercial products anywhere near the ad-space. It would only be a matter of time before a firmware update allows "permitted" ads through because the advertiser paid the proper sum. It may be time to finally set up my pi-hole.
I set up NextDNS instead of a pi-hole, because frankly pi-hole seemed a bit daunting as a non technical user (if not setup, proper maintenance) and it's been great, between that and uBlock Origin I feel well shielded, and when I use my wife's iPad with neither of these I'm appalled at what the internet has become ad-wise
but nextdns is suffering from the same problem as every other centralised service (beeing a prime point for siphoning information on a large scale and a easy target for manipulation)
Agreed and advertisers do agree too. They themselves demanded controversial content to be removed while their ads are showing, society demanding the same is in line with that thought. They do pay for many internet services, but I think the negative aspects outbalance the monetary advantages.
> They themselves demanded controversial content to be removed I don't think this is necessarily true. They demanded that their ads are not shown next to controversial content. An unintended consequence of this is that the definition of 'controversial' is fluid and open to abuse. So if a pressure-group deems your thoughts and opinions 'controversial' you get no ads. And if you get no ads there's no real incentive for…
They made the mistake that they did comply and now get overwhelmed with further demands. They could have just had a "take it or leave it" strategy and I am very sure advertisers would just have continued to pay, because it benefits them too.
Youtube set the precedent for advertisers demanding editorial control on content, it is purely on their misbehavior we have this problem.
Because now advertisers can be made responsible where their ads are shown and what is seen next to them.