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This discussion has been archived.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.
There's no such thing as an original sin.
-- Elvis Costello
(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.