SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Archivist David Rosenthal asks on his blog, Has Web Advertising Jumped The Shark?.
He points out that there are four big problems with Web advertising as it currently exists: The bad guys love it, the readers hate it, the webmasters hate it too, and the advertisers find that it wastes money. He then goes into detail on each point and concludes that not only does everyone involved hate the system, but that it is causing actual harm to society.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Discussion: Has Web Advertising Jumped The Shark?
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 85 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
I don't want a pickle,
I just wanna ride on my motorsickle.
And I don't want to die,
I just want to ride on my motorcy.
Cle.
-- Arlo Guthrie
(Score: 4, Interesting) by idiot_king on Friday November 24 2017, @04:54AM (59 children)
Adblock? Ublock? Ever heard of em?
Not only do they make websites easier to read and manage, they stick it to the idiot capitalist pigs that think interrupting my morning reads are just what I want with a cup of coffee.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 24 2017, @04:58AM
Go out to the pub tonight and ask random strangers whether they've ever heard of Adblock.
You're living in a bubble, mate.
(Score: 0, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 24 2017, @05:05AM (49 children)
It takes resources to produce content; it has to be funded somehow.
Maybe advertising is a silly way to do it, but it has allowed for a lot of content production to be funded.
In any case, I'm not surprised that an anti-capitalist such as yourself feels so little obligation to pay his "fair share" for the infrastructure that he enjoys. That's exactly why socialism always bleeds a society until it collapses in violent death throws, only to be reborn in the womb of a black market.
Go fuck yourselves.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by idiot_king on Friday November 24 2017, @05:11AM (23 children)
That's why the Scandinavian countries are known for being hellholes, right?
Sounds like you're doing a good getting fucked by shitposting too much. :^)
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 24 2017, @05:37AM (16 children)
Nice one. Pointing to tiny, genetically homogeneous societies as your examples of success.
Oh, and by the way, they've stagnated in terms of innovation, and are now drowning in refugees who don't respect the shared values on which they built their societies.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 24 2017, @07:21AM (1 child)
So is Germany, right? It's people like you, that never go out of their parent's basements, that seem to be afraid of everyone and everything. Your fear is what causes most of chaos in the world. People like ISIS are closer to your mindset than you think. They are also afraid of everyone that is "not like them".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 24 2017, @07:54AM
Got it...
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 24 2017, @08:26AM
Indeed, and as someone living there myself, let me tell you why... Because our politicians are so hell-bent on importing every disadvantage of capitalist plutocratism from the USA, rather than sticking with the things that we know work better.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Aiwendil on Friday November 24 2017, @12:45PM (9 children)
The nordic countries together are slightly bigger than India* (which is about 30% in size of australia) and combined has a slighty higher population than australia.
* = greenland is friggin' huge.
And genetically homogeneous? FFS, an average Stockholmare is genetically more a german than a northener. Quite frankly the nordic countries are genetically diverse (due to being trade nations for the last couple of milennia, and spending a few hundred of them waging war) to the point where the "pure scandinavian" (which btw isn't the native scandinavian) is less than 3% in some countries (like denmark) (was at about 24% a few thousand years ago).
The Sami people (natives of northern nor/swe/fin and northwestern russia) are indeed quite different.
Pretty much the only place in the nordic countries where you find a genetically homogenous people are remote islands (incl greenland and iceland) but those tend to be divergant from major populations.
And btw, blue eyes are a genetic trait that originated near the black sea/baltic states.
(Score: 0, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 24 2017, @05:12PM (5 children)
Aww bursting their little bubble, hope they can cope. The homogenous thing was one of the last things they could cling to about why socialism works well there. They refuse to realize that they are combining about capitalist economies with high tax rates to fund social programs, not true socialism. Ah well, I think soon enough we'll move past these ignoramuses.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Aiwendil on Friday November 24 2017, @05:45PM (4 children)
We are very well aware that we use a hybrid system of capitalism that is underpinned with a (somewhat) strong socialist backing. And we are well aware that pure socialism is pretty much as bad as pure capitalism - hence we aim for a middle road.
And the reason why socialism works well here in the nordics is because being greedy and flaunting wealth are some of the rudest things you can do and is considered punk-behaviour (as the old joke goes - "want to be late? drive a BMW since noone will let you pass"). Over here wearing brand names usually means you are in debt while wearing threadbare jeans are not uncommon on millionaries (which you - btw - won't be surprised finding at the thrift store).
Heck, we even have our ruling politicians using the friggin' subway system.
All in all it simply lands in a simple "what should I do with more than I need?" and hence we tend to limit greed (still exists, it just isn't as rampant as in other countries). Oh also, using credit for spending is considered an ugly thing over here as well and we have very efficient national repo-services - so we also tend to buy less junk and actually want function over form (this is btw why "scandinavian design" is so minimal - overly lavish is just garish to us)
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday November 24 2017, @07:41PM
Most Americans would hate this. I love it personally, but it seems like most Americans can't even imagine living this way. That's probably where so much of the animus for the Nordic countries comes from; they can't admit a bit of thrift and Jante would do them some good, so they have to rationalize that it's something *else* (hence the thinly-veiled references to "it's all white people, no wonder it works!") or just plain insult you--and the reason they choose "socialist" as an insult is it's the worst thing they can think of.
You're Doin' It Right (TM); fuck the haters.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 24 2017, @08:36PM (2 children)
As expected, you got that backwards.
Nordic countries became wealthy under what was more or less capitalism, and then their shared values allowed Nordics to use that wealth to construct socialism atop the productivity of capitalism. As always, though, socialism's insidious parasitical nature has led to a bleeding out of the capitalist host, and Nordic countries have begun to stagnate, especially under the increased pressure of non-Nordic peoples.
TL;DR: To be workable, socialism must be built atop capitalism; the reverse is totally unworkable.
Eat a dick.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Aiwendil on Saturday November 25 2017, @06:49AM (1 child)
Nah, the wealth was built during a "sod it, let's try everything" attitude born out of desperation (kinda like how South Korea got immensly rich even faster). Quite frankly we used every single model we could to reduce the costs and maximize the gains (and do note - gains with "getting most quality of life for the money" not [only] "the most money"). Here in sweden the "Saltsjöbadsavtalet" (Saltsjöbaden Agreement) is still known as the watershed moment (and also as an unholy agreement).
And funny how you claim that the socialistic parasitic tedencies has bled the capitalistic host - especially since it has been our more capitalistic periods (1970s, 2000s) that has led to economic downturns (after one heck of a gain - we gained prosperity at the cost of stability). As mentioned, going too far into either system is a bonehead maneuver.
And btw, _no_ economic model works in isolation - every one of them has significant bootstrap issues during which time they need to be carried by something else before they can kick into gear.
And if capitalism built atop of socialism is unworkable then shall we discuss china during the last couple of decades? ;)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 25 2017, @09:04AM
The Chinese government is definitely a parasitical, tyrannical regime built atop whatever resources can be gathered by whatever means necessary.
It's true: Capitalistic flows of resources have led to a great deal of prosperity in China. However, that's not because such flows of resources have been built atop the communism (or even socialism) of China; nay, such capitalism is a hush-hush, unspoken aspect of China's success. Indeed, that capitalism has emerged despite the inherent authoritarianism of a supposedly socialist regime. The regime would have collapsed long ago had it not turned a blind eye toward the black markets.
TL;DR: China's rise has been due to capitalism, not the fake posturing of socialist governments that pretend to be the leaders of Chinese prosperity. The same goes for Scandinavia; your socialist regimes are a farce—they are an illusion built atop capitalism.
Eat a dick, socialists.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 24 2017, @08:59PM (2 children)
Australia has 25 million people.
The New York metropolitan area has 23.7 million people.
So... WTF are you going on about? You're a flea on the elephant's scrotum.
Go fuck yourself.
(Score: 2) by Aiwendil on Saturday November 25 2017, @06:57AM (1 child)
And Alaska has 0.75 million people despite being the greatest state in USA... (ffs, provide context)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 25 2017, @09:08AM
Scandinavia is a large, resource-full land inhabited by a small number of hard-working, homogeneous, Germanic whites.
That's the way it is. Accept it.
Sigh... SoylentNews... eat a white, natural, uncut dick.
(Score: 2) by julian on Friday November 24 2017, @11:21PM (2 children)
And there it is. It never takes long.
You don't really hate socialism so much as you hate the idea of having to share a social safety net with black people. You're just a bigot and we don't have to take your ideas seriously.
(Score: 0, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 25 2017, @01:56AM
Your response is so outlandish; it's completely detached from any kind of logical analysis.
You're just an illogical fool, and thus we don't have to take your ideas seriously.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 25 2017, @09:09AM
Your response is so outlandish; it's completely detached from any kind of logical analysis.
You're just an illogical fool, and thus we don't have to take your ideas seriously.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday November 24 2017, @05:59AM (1 child)
Venezuela is such a lovely Scandinavian country.
(Score: 2) by dry on Saturday November 25 2017, @04:11AM
One of those is very corrupt.
(Score: 0, Troll) by In hydraulis on Friday November 24 2017, @06:20AM
You are aware that Sweden has infamously devolved into a rape cage, aren't you?
(Score: 3, Informative) by crafoo on Friday November 24 2017, @06:54AM (1 child)
What you attribute to a hybrid economic system I would attribute to a fairly exclusive (racially), tight-knit, traditional culture that values effort, perseverance, and intelligence.
Been to the caliphate of Sweden lately?
(Score: 0, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 24 2017, @05:14PM
Its black Friday so in the spirit of cheap shit I'll give you this one for free: you're an idiot.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 24 2017, @05:42PM
Soon
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 24 2017, @05:12AM
On behalf of all the ACs, i apologize for this loser above. Happy thanksgivings day to the SN crew.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 24 2017, @05:45AM (1 child)
So we should all open up our machines to malware and having our eyes raped so you can get money from that? Should we also walk around without any pants so you can rape us up the butt whenever you want?
Apparently, protecting our orifices is teh ebil socialism.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 24 2017, @05:50AM
With consumers like this guy, who needs producers?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Friday November 24 2017, @06:03AM (13 children)
Excessive bad posting? Yes, your post is definitely bad.
How about another angle on this whole issue? Ultimate, PEOPLE pay for the infrastructure. Sure, some of that money comes from advertising, with money that was ripped/raped from the end consumer because prices were increased to pay for that shitty advertising. Ultimately, ALL of those dollars come from citizen's pockets.
So, we have an infrastructure which was paid for by citizen/customers/consumers. And, those parasites in charge of advertising companies feel that they should have the privilege of using OUR internet to make more money for themselves?
They can all go fuck themselves. Or, fuck each other. We're tired of them fucking us.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 24 2017, @06:26AM (9 children)
'Nuff said.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Friday November 24 2017, @06:38AM (8 children)
The same idiot who thinks advertisers are a good thing, obviously gets confused by the English language. There is zero truth in anything posted in your, or the GGP AC post. America would be much better off if advertising were severely restricted. Or, alternatively, if advertisers started to respect the end customer, who ultimately pays their wages.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 24 2017, @07:07AM (7 children)
... because all that matters is what the market will bear; all that matters is what the Universe will compute.
Socialists will always have breadlines, because ultimately they don't respect the Laws of Physics; that's how dumb they are.
Why do you think Winston of 1984 was tortured until he professed that "2+2=5" or that his abuser floated in the air? It's because Orwell was saying that you folks try to construct society atop a foundation of abject fantasy.
Go fuck yourselves.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday November 24 2017, @08:56AM
"all that matters is what the market will bear"
So, you're a parasite, feeding off the oblivious herd. Got it. As long as the herd doesn't all fall over dead, you're happy - your next meal is readily available.
(Score: 3, Informative) by http on Friday November 24 2017, @04:13PM (5 children)
So why do capitalists have
breadlinesinefficient welfare services?I browse at -1 when I have mod points. It's unsettling.
(Score: 0, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 24 2017, @05:32PM
Rather, socialists use the ancient, simplistically dumb ideas of authoritarianism to grow insidious parasitical structures around the productive capitalists; being people who don't respect the principles of capitalism, these socialists construct terribly inefficient "welfare" programs.
Go fuck yourselves.
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 24 2017, @08:38PM
Rather, socialists use the ancient, simplistically dumb ideas of authoritarianism to grow insidious parasitical structures around the productive capitalists; being people who don't respect the principles of capitalism, these socialists construct terribly inefficient "welfare" programs.
Go fuck yourselves.
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 25 2017, @01:59AM
Rather, socialists use the ancient, simplistically dumb ideas of authoritarianism to grow insidious parasitical structures around the productive capitalists; being people who don't respect the principles of capitalism, these socialists construct terribly inefficient "welfare" programs.
Go fuck yourselves.
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 25 2017, @09:14AM (1 child)
Rather, socialists use the ancient, simplistically dumb ideas of authoritarianism to grow insidious parasitical structures around the productive capitalists; being people who don't respect the principles of capitalism, these socialists construct terribly inefficient "welfare" programs.
Go fuck yourselves.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday November 26 2017, @03:26AM
Do you dine well in Camelot? Do you have to push the pram a lot? Why do you come here and Spam a lot? Modded down, down, down, and the flames rise higher...
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Spamalope on Friday November 24 2017, @08:16AM
Selling the right to attempt malware infection of site visitors to the highest bidder provided they pretend to advertise as well, with a heaping side of Orwellian stalking - I supposed an oligarchy version as it's private megacorps that are most invested in that.
I'm pretty sure that's my objection. Hundreds of popups/unders/pay us virus warnings on a co-workers PC because those neat ad networks pay by impression and there's no reason to let the sucka you've tricked into clicking your honey pot google link get away without generating you at least a few hundred impressions. And hey - that might just get them to bite on the AV scam and that commission adds up.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by SpockLogic on Friday November 24 2017, @01:18PM (1 child)
If Ajit the Idjit has his way it wont be our internet much longer.
Overreacting is one thing, sticking your head up your ass hoping the problem goes away is another - edIII
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 24 2017, @07:14PM
Can someone explain how it is that he, and other members of the present political party in the majority, are able to legally do what they are doing without having the appropriate public discussions and comment periods, etc?
While he has indeed been appointed, and that our democracy works as a democratic republic in that we vote for people that represent our interests. Corporations do not vote and their interests in how the Internet should be governed should only have a small influence as to how the Internet (at least in the US) is to be governed.
He's acting with imputiny and will get away with a lot. It will take years and years and years to undo the damage that this guy can allow to happen, and he'll laugh all the way to the bank. It doesn't matter if he loses his job later; he'll be filthy rich by then and won't want to work anymore anyway. He won't have to; not unless someone finds dirt on him or something. And that is a poor outcome; people should not have to dig to see just how dirty the guy and his deal is.
People have expressed their opinions and he's ignoring it, and it doesn't seem like there's a lot that can be done about it by playing by the rules.
It's like what lord Dark Helmet said -- Evil will win because Good is dumb.
(Score: 3, Touché) by c0lo on Friday November 24 2017, @07:46AM (4 children)
Come on, table the receipts that show you paid you fair share.
Start with you share of supporting S/N.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 24 2017, @07:59AM (1 child)
I mean, you fuckfaces would lose 80% of your discussion if it weren't for me.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday November 24 2017, @10:24AM
Words... are cheap; socialist type of cheap, so to say.
The capitalists are more pragmatic [youtu.be]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday November 24 2017, @12:12PM (1 child)
Soylentils can help the community by giving gift subscriptions to other registered members. In the spirit of the season, give them to your ideological opponents as well as your confreres.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 24 2017, @01:17PM
> as well as your confreres.
That's "covfefes".
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 24 2017, @08:40AM
It's capitalists that don't want to pay their fair share. They want everything for free, especially money.
Advertisers are supposed to pay for advertising space. In the physical world, they do that. But in the digital world, they think they can just put their advertising up where they like without paying, something that in the physical world is known as graffiti.
I, for example, offer advertising space on my monitor at a completely fair rate, in fact I charge the exact same price per percentage of screen coverage as a formula one team would charge per percentage of the car covered by ads.
By now, advertisers owe me a ton of money, and not a single one of them is paying. So I've had to use multiple layers of ad blocking (ublock, DNS blocking) to keep them from putting up their graffiti without paying for advertising space.
(Score: 2, Flamebait) by srobert on Friday November 24 2017, @03:25PM
Actually I think it's the socialists who DO want to pay their fair share. It's libertarians who keep insisting that "taxes are theft". They may have learned about that philosophy in the public school they attended.
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Friday November 24 2017, @07:40PM
the problem with most ads is that they can be used for tracking. But they don't have to be: ads can be served from the same server is a content. There are services that enable that.
Web bugs make me paranoid.
Consider the problems faced by closeted gay republicans.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by SomeGuy on Friday November 24 2017, @05:21AM (5 children)
You and I have heard of them, but the vast majority of people out there have no idea, are afraid to install such programs, or are not permitted to install such programs.
In a proper world, ad blockers would be installed on every single computer.
Web advertising jumped the shark the moment it became abusive. Advertisements that jump around the screen, cover all of the content (if there really was any), make noise, advertise scummy malicious products, install malware, and so on have long since broken any trust of any readers. The very first time this happens, any advertising company rightfully should go out of business. But mindless consumers keep going back to abusive web sites, and no one ever seems to go to jail for serving up malware. If advertisers had stuck to static graphic advertisements for Tide Detergent, they would not be in this mess.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Friday November 24 2017, @06:12AM (3 children)
Advertising, in general, has been abusive for about 40 years. When I was a child, I watched television a good bit. Mickey Mouse, Romper Room, Mr. Rogers. Back then, you actually watched about 55 minutes of content, for 5 minutes of advertising. Then it dropped to 50 minutes for ten minutes of advertising. Then, 45 minutes. As an older kid, I remember reading an article, questioning when things would reverse, ie, when we would have to watch MORE THAN 30 minutes of advertising, in exchange for less than a half hour of programming. The abuse only got worse.
With the internet, things are much worse. Go to a site, and try to read a story that requires a few kb of download. To get that story, you also download multiple MB of advertising bullshit. That's about like watching thousands of hours of advertising, to get a minute or two of content.
How, and why, do I owe it to anyone to watch all that trash?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 24 2017, @08:18AM
> As an older kid, I remember reading an article, questioning when things would reverse, ie, when we would have to watch MORE THAN 30 minutes of advertising, in exchange for less than a half hour of programming.
From the clips I've seen on the tube sites (no TV, yadda yadda, sue me), it's way over that now. Not directly - I think the shows are ~22 minutes or so, though sometimes sped-up to squeeze an additional adspot or two. However, a huge proportion of those supposedly-"content" minutes have ads *over* the content, or even ads *inside of* the content. Like banner ads and "sponsored posts" online, but worse.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Friday November 24 2017, @09:24AM
I must have already cited it, anyway Italians had taken it one step further. On evening prime time there was a 10 minutes show, Carosello (carousel), consisting entirely of ads.
The catch? the advertised product was forbidden to be the main theme of the short film, it could not be shown for more than 4 times or 30 seconds, and so on.
The result? Entertaining short films, 20 years of success, people still remembering some slogans now, 40 years after the last episode went on air, a generation of italian film makers and illustrators cutting their teeth on those.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUJ239u1a3U [youtube.com]
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday November 24 2017, @12:19PM
That's why they have been trying to figure out product placement and integrations for years, because interruptive advertisements are being evaded by adblocking and DVR. It's always lame, though, and hard for enad agencies to measure and price for the customers.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by sjames on Friday November 24 2017, @08:45PM
I suspect more people than you think are installing ad blockers based on the increasing number of sites that go to the trouble of adding ad-block detection.
Those beg screens to disable ad-blocking crack me up. I'm NOT running an adblocker, I'm running Privacy Badger. If they weren't trying to dart and tag me like a wild bear or feed me malware their ads would show just fine. It's like a burglar "politely" asking me to not lock my door and crying about how I'm damaging the local economy by locking him out.
As for the rest of advertising, they too are their own worst enemy. Their continuing charge to cover every exposed surface with ads has turned them into noise that gets filtered out.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 24 2017, @06:48PM
AdBlock, Ublock = yes.
FF56: everthing worked
FF57: sites block me, pop ups and pop unders happen, leather controls are broken
What would stop advertising is end-user charges. You pay me $1 per pixel per second (or part thereof) to show you silly ad. (we all secretly wish this could be true)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 26 2017, @12:53PM
You won't have much to read so. In 2017, the last computer news site in my main language got removed because ad texts were presented as articles. Internet becomes a second TV, unfortunately. And it's not a problem of funding, you can get decent hosting for almost free and maintain anonymity. It's a problem of someone stealthily robbing users from their time.