21–30 of 126 posts
Online advertising has become and more vicious - on all my computers, I run adblock/no script, etc, but on my phone, browsing sites like retractionwatch or theatlantic, I've been redirected to full page ads for subscription services where the automatic subscription button is about 1mm where the 'close window' button appears.
This is great detective work, and hopefully Yahoo steps in and fixes this. Online advertising has become and more vicious - on all my computers, I run adblock/no script, etc, but on my phone, browsing sites like retractionwatch or theatlantic, I've been redirected to full page ads for subscription services where the automatic subscription button is about 1mm where the 'close window' button appears.
and Forbes, CNN, Discover Magazine, etcetera sue both the company for plagiarism, as well as copyright and trademark infringements. They should probably sue the advertising company behind it too, those organizations have the moral obligation IMO to ensure the quality and legitimacy of the companies that buy advertising with them.
>Do companies like Brainstorm Elite ever pay the price for wholesale fraud and the theft of brand identities? Yes, they do. The FTC takes them for every penny they got. At least the big ones. http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/01/the-dark...
99% of online advertisers give the rest a bad name. Not only is this why online advertising is ultimately doomed, but it's why we hugely and desperately and badly need to find another way of paying for content. The alternatives for the moment are gratis, patronage, "native advertising", and subscriptions. Few of these strike me as ultimately scalable. I've been a fan of Phil Hunt, of Pirate Party UK, and his broadban…
So true; remove "online" from the sentence above and it's even truer.
> it's why we hugely and desperately and badly need to find another way of paying for content
Not sure about that.
Here are the ways I can think of we gain access to content:
- by directly paying for it (books, movies, etc.)
- by indirectly paying for it (ad supported newspapers articles and such)
- by paying for it via taxes (your proposal)
- because it's free.
The best content is undeniably that which people will specifically, directly buy with their own money[1].
And the second best is free.
All the other content distribution schemes produce bad content, either hollow or click-baity or just plain dumb.
My point is that AdBlock is saving the world.
1: For the purpose of this discussion, pirated is in the same category as paid-for.
I was originally against ad-blockers, because it provides me with an incentive to look for alternatives and I also want to reward websites that don't do this shit. However, it's because of scams and malware pushed by means of ads that I started using ad-blockers myself and I recommend it to all my non-technical friends. It's also the reason for why on my Android I'm now using Firefox. For Google to not provide at lea…
I am thinking, maybe I should get an ad-blocker. Not tu reward the webistes, but stop punishing poor folks who buy ads and then waste money showing them to me, because I never click them…
99% of online advertisers give the rest a bad name. Not only is this why online advertising is ultimately doomed, but it's why we hugely and desperately and badly need to find another way of paying for content. The alternatives for the moment are gratis, patronage, "native advertising", and subscriptions. Few of these strike me as ultimately scalable. I've been a fan of Phil Hunt, of Pirate Party UK, and his broadban…
See, the intense irony in your comment is that you are effectively advertising your own content using exaggerated, overhyped claim. If you consider such actions to be a net negative for the society, you are a part of the problem.
I do not disagree with you on principle and your proposal has some merit. The thing is that advertising/marketing dicussion is much more multifaceted and complex than HN collective mind portrays it to be: "advertising bad! mmkay?". The nuances and the opportunities to enact meaningful, real change in the advertising ecosystem are lost when rational discourse is suppressed by claims like "99% of advertisers are bad". Good actors should be rewarded and bad should be discouraged economically. By lumping all of them in the bad bucket, you are encouranging detrimental behaviour.
Harmful,intrusive,obnoxious advertising is a symptom, not a disease. You can't get rid of such ads without changing the underlying structure of socioeconomic reality, at least for limited cluster of audience.
99% of online advertisers give the rest a bad name. Not only is this why online advertising is ultimately doomed, but it's why we hugely and desperately and badly need to find another way of paying for content. The alternatives for the moment are gratis, patronage, "native advertising", and subscriptions. Few of these strike me as ultimately scalable. I've been a fan of Phil Hunt, of Pirate Party UK, and his broadban…
99% of online advertisers give the rest a bad name. Not only is this why online advertising is ultimately doomed, but it's why we hugely and desperately and badly need to find another way of paying for content. The alternatives for the moment are gratis, patronage, "native advertising", and subscriptions. Few of these strike me as ultimately scalable. I've been a fan of Phil Hunt, of Pirate Party UK, and his broadban…
Hm, now the link in the article (www.discoverpresentsonline.com/david-brain/report.html) just redirects to the real discover magazine.
>Do companies like Brainstorm Elite ever pay the price for wholesale fraud and the theft of brand identities? Yes, they do. The FTC takes them for every penny they got. At least the big ones. http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/01/the-dark...
But it won't help much, because they're all shell companies intended to be cheap to dispose of whenever the backlash strikes - and before that happens, they will already have whisked any proceeds away.
this seems to be reasonable force to make them find ways of filtering rouge clients.
some of payment processing companies will freeze incoming payments up to 6 months for high risk clients for example. that's a good start.