SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 18 submissions in the queue.
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This discussion has been archived.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.
You are a fluke of the universe; you have no right to be here.
(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.