from the lies-damn-lies-and-youtube-whinging dept.
I have recently read many discussions in places like r/youtube where users who block ads are described as immature freeloaders or selfish for expecting others to watch ads so they don't have to. I believe most users understand that it's expensive to host a video streaming service, and that YouTube has to pay their bills somehow. However, at this point in time, there are very valid reasons for users to continue blocking YouTube ads. YouTube also has better solutions to increase revenue without resorting to their recent aggressive tactics.
Many ads contain NSFW content or obvious scams
YouTube clearly has the ability to detect content that violates the platform's rules, and videos are regularly demonetized for doing so. Because YouTube can moderate user-submitted content in this manner, they also have the ability to moderate sponsor-submitted content. Users have a reasonable expectation to not be subjected to NSFW content without their consent. I have read many reports of ads with cartoon characters engaging in sexual acts, and that is inappropriate. YouTube also does not have the ability to detect who is actually watching a video at a specific time, meaning that they could be exposing children to this content.
YouTube should not be sending content to users that is actively attempting to harm them, and scam ads are doing exactly that. Although many of these scams are obvious, which should make it easier to detect them using YouTube's moderation tools, there are still people who will be fooled. YouTube is not very responsive to user complaints about abusive ads, probably because they don't want to risk losing money from sponsors. One of the main reasons users block ads on other sites is because they are often deceptive or contain malicious payloads. At this time, that is also the best recourse users have to protect themselves from harmful ads on YouTube.
YouTube's argument that banning ad blockers is done to help content creators is disingenuous
YouTube's ban on ad blockers has been accompanied by increasing the frequency, duration, and intrusiveness of ads before and during videos. They have also raised the price of YouTube Premium, though the increased ads may be an effort to drive users to pay the higher subscription prices. YouTube justifies this as being necessary to support content creators. However, YouTube's policies toward content creators is exploitative, and YouTube is not comparable to other streaming services.
Streaming platforms like Hulu, Netflix, and Amazon Prime negotiate terms with their content providers, including the price of the content. YouTube does not negotiate with its content creators in the same way, and it has a history of changing the terms of its monetization programs in ways that adversely affect smaller channels. YouTube can also demonetize videos at their sole discretion.
I am not suggesting that each content creator should get to negotiate their terms individually with YouTube. That's impractical. The problem is that YouTube has a de facto monopoly, meaning that content creators don't have viable alternatives to monetize their content on other platforms. Historically, YouTube had few ads and actually lost money, while potential competitors lost users because they had more advertising. Because YouTube has been successful in driving its competitors out of business through its anticompetitive behavior, content creators no longer have viable alternatives. There are a number of other video hosting sites, but they serve specific niches, have far fewer viewers, and hosting content on those services will generally be even less profitable for content creators. As such, YouTube can dictate terms to content producers with little recourse, which is not the case for other streaming services.
YouTube uses targeted advertising at the expense of user privacy
Don't forget, YouTube is owned by Google, which aggregates large amounts of data to serve people targeted advertisements. Google does not respect the privacy of users, and the ads you see on YouTube are generally targeted to you like any other ad Google displays. This is not necessary, and YouTube advertising might be more effective if it was contextual, primarily based on the content of the videos alongside which the ads are displayed. YouTube has chosen not to respect the privacy of its users. The collection and aggregation of data used to target ads is actively harmful to users and is all the more reason to continue blocking ads.
YouTube has better solutions to many of its problems
I believe that users are intelligent and understand that it is expensive for YouTube to host and distribute content, and that those bills need to be paid somehow. Instead of taking an adversarial position, YouTube should take users' concerns seriously and improve the quality of the ads they display. That means vetting ads before they're displayed to avoid NSFW content and obvious scams from being displayed to users. Many of the changes to YouTube's monetization system have been panned by content creators, and YouTube could show good faith by rolling back these changes and making it easier for small channels to monetize their content. YouTube could eliminate targeted advertising, automatically classify the content of videos, and only display contextual advertising. They could also offer intermediate options between being bombarded with massive amounts of ads and paying $13.99/month to remove all ads. For example, a cheaper plan could be offered to eliminate all mid-roll advertising, allowing some ads to remain while being much less obvious to users.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday November 14 2023, @12:45AM
https://www.ic3.gov/Media/Y2022/PSA221221?=8324278624 [ic3.gov]
“I have become friends with many school shooters” - Tampon Tim Walz
(Score: 3, Disagree) by darkfeline on Tuesday November 14 2023, @01:11AM (24 children)
Stop trying to rationalize your actions.
If ads are bad, the solution is to stop using YouTube. Obviously this depends on your values, but by all rational, common sense accounts ad blocking is wrong. I think it's wrong, but I'm not going to do mental gymnastics over it. YouTube provides me value and I decided to break my side of the contract by blocking ads and getting that content for free. It's wrong, not gonna stop me because I'm selfish and stingy and I'm a techie who's happy to flex my tech skills/privilege.
Ad blocking is wrong. If you disagree with the service contract, stop using the service. Or block ads and accept that you're doing something bad. Spare me your justifications.
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 5, Touché) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday November 14 2023, @01:20AM
Well, now that you mention it, my white privilege entitles me to block ads. Also, toxic masculinity. No need for any other reasons or excuses.
“I have become friends with many school shooters” - Tampon Tim Walz
(Score: 5, Interesting) by HiThere on Tuesday November 14 2023, @01:28AM (3 children)
FWIW, I avoid youtube. I also feel ad-blocking is justified. Were sites to host the ads they displayed (thus taking responsibility), I'd be much less certain about this.
That said, if a site doesn't want me to visit if I use an ad blocker, I'm quite willing to avoid that site. The alternative would be to have a separate computer that I only used for internet access. (For some purposes i *do* have a special unprivileged user, but that's not really sufficient.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by takyon on Tuesday November 14 2023, @02:30AM (1 child)
They might have to do it just to defeat the blockers. Embed the appropriate number of video ads (it varies based on video length and channels may have some control over number and placement) directly into the content video as it is being served. They could still collect IP for geolocated ads before the video starts, and any number of other tricks. Alphabet/Google owns YouTube and what was formerly known as DoubleClick. They have the knowhow, I'm surprised they didn't go for the kill years ago.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Freeman on Tuesday November 14 2023, @04:22PM
Simplest and best solution, require a subscription to access YouTube. Problem solved. Also, you'll happen to have boat loads less users.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 16 2023, @09:04PM
Somebody (at google I think) once leaked the real reason they don't do this. It's because the advertisers, google, and the third party sites showing ads, all don't trust each other to count how many times they show the ads. The ads have to come from a server where the advertiser can count the serves.
Zero pixel jpgs or pings on a server are not good enough, if they don't see the actual ad go out they won't believe google or the third party showed it.
(Score: 5, Touché) by ikanreed on Tuesday November 14 2023, @01:58AM (3 children)
Rationalizing our actions is expected if our actions are rational.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Tuesday November 14 2023, @02:46PM (2 children)
You don't have to rationalize the obviously rational. It's when there's inherent contradictions in what we're doing (and reality) versus what we're saying where generating excuses for the action come into play.
For a recent example, consider all the political extremists who are absolutely certain that the Other Side is going to destroy society or worse. The real reason is just to rationalize why one refuses to listen to other viewpoints.
(Score: 2) by EEMac on Tuesday November 14 2023, @07:51PM (1 child)
> consider all the political extremists who are absolutely certain that the Other Side is going to destroy society or worse.
Some groups actually do want to destroy society. It's their stated goal, and we should believe them.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by khallow on Wednesday November 15 2023, @01:13AM
Even when that is true (and it often isn't [snopes.com]!), common sense should prevail. If they aren't breaking the law, for example, then there are all sorts of peaceful ways to socially engage and defeat such a group. It also doesn't excuse other people from diligent thought just because there are bad people somewhere out there.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by helel on Tuesday November 14 2023, @02:29AM
Google has a long history of allowing advertisements to deliver malware from drive-by exploits for windows, crypto-mining in your browser, to highjacking popular software search terms to deliver modified versions that will backdoor your computer. It's just not safe to browse google services or any website using google ads without an ad blocker, and that's before we even get to the fact that google is a horrendous peeping tom constantly watching your every move.
Until google is willing to take legal liability for the advertisements they serve up they have no right to complain about end users protecting themselves.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Tork on Tuesday November 14 2023, @03:24AM
Virtually all internet advertising is opaque to you. You don't know who the clients are. You don't know what standards a service has when it comes to vetting those ads. These ads are not passive content so you don't know what all happens when advertising code is run in your browser. You don't know what information the service is sending along to other parties. You don't know how much they're making off your eyeballs. You don't know if the creator of the content you're enjoying is being paid. I could keep going but I think you get the idea. You don't get a say in any of it, oh and the same company we're talking about may very well be the one who is making your web browser.
Google's basically asking everyone to bare their asses and grab their ankles while using their service. Yeah... don't use their service, but there is a point where people need to push back because what they're asking of people is unreasonable, there's a lot Google and its users need to hammer out.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 5, Insightful) by crafoo on Tuesday November 14 2023, @04:08AM (2 children)
No. Stripping ads from the internet serves my purposes and so I will do so. I don't need to appeal to whatever morality you seem to believe I should adhere to.
"Ad blocking is wrong. If you disagree with the service contract, stop using the service."
No, nd no. Does that make you mad? Do something about it.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Tuesday November 14 2023, @04:24PM (1 child)
YouTube could do something about it, by changing to a subscription only model. Even with cheap ad-supported video sites, you have to sign-up for a paid account. YouTube also realizes that they will likely be shooting themselves in the foot, if they tried that. There are boat loads of users that will never pay for YouTube.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Tork on Tuesday November 14 2023, @06:09PM
I made a remark earlier that when you use an ad-blocker they don't actually block the content you're watching. In the case of Youtube I think they're switching stream sources to show the ad, the ad-blocker just says "ignore that connection." If the ad were coming through the same stream as the video you're watching, your ad-blocker wouldn't be able to touch it.
And that's the way it should be. The idea that third party ads can basically set up shop on their client's page is just disturbing. This is why malware gets through!
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Opportunist on Tuesday November 14 2023, @09:15AM (1 child)
I'm also not going to do mental gymnastics over it. Corporations don't give a fuck about my interests and will take as much as they can without providing any more than they absolutely have to, I don't give a fuck about corporations' interests and will take as much as I can without providing any more than I absolutely have to. Mental gymnastics over.
Fair vs. fair. I give as much a fuck about you as you give about me.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by RedGreen on Tuesday November 14 2023, @11:58AM
"Fair vs. fair. I give as much a fuck about you as you give about me."
Well said and totally on point when dealing with the parasite corporations and the slimy bastards that run them..
"I modded down, down, down, and the flames went higher." -- Sven Olsen
(Score: 5, Funny) by aafcac on Tuesday November 14 2023, @01:29PM
I remember when my parents upgraded from DSL to fiber. The assumption was that it was going to be faster. I'm practice only dinner things were faster. Streaming was better and large downloaded were as well, but web surfing was essentially the same speed due to ad networks holding up the page load to try to get more bids in. Blocking the ads made things load the way that a fiber connection a should.
(Score: 5, Touché) by Improbus on Tuesday November 14 2023, @01:59PM
I think you will find most people disagree with you. But, hey, just keep tilting at those windmills Don Quixote.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 14 2023, @07:48PM (1 child)
Right, because corporations only have rights, no responsibilities or duties or oblications. /Sarcasm
Really, that embarrassingly stupid what you just said.
(Score: 2) by aafcac on Wednesday November 15 2023, @01:19PM
I wish we would return to a time where rights were paired with responsible. If you're going to be publishing things you should have the responsibility to act in good faith, even if the message is still fucked, it's just a shame that enforcement is impossible without gutting the first amendment which would likely cause more problems. Next best thing would be to limit how much of the market can be owned by one party and hope competition keeps it in check.
(Score: 2) by cmdrklarg on Tuesday November 14 2023, @08:40PM
I am paying for it already, with all the data they hoover up on me, even with the measures I take to prevent that. Couple that with the insistence on making their ads annoying and/or malicious I figure that's a fair trade.
The world is full of kings and queens who blind your eyes and steal your dreams.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by dwilson on Tuesday November 14 2023, @08:49PM
Ad-blocking is wrong in the same sense that copyright infringement is theft.
Which is to say, It isn't. But it would suite the purposes of a whole lot of entrenched groups if we could be made to think it was, wouldn't it?
- D
(Score: 2) by SomeGuy on Wednesday November 15 2023, @12:16AM
On my little OTA TV anyway, I have the right to change the channel when a commercial comes on. I have the right to turn down the volume. I have the right to put a towel over my TV if I want. I have the right to unplug the thing if I want. I even have the right to put in a device (lets power it with AI!) to turn off the commercials for me, or even buffer the program so I don't see them. Until that comes along, I'll fast forward past them with my VCR.
Where does it stop? You know damn well the big craporations want to take even those rights away. As long as I can control my own computer, I have the right to use software to alter how it loads or appears. Granted, as the craporate enshittifiers do their work we eventually will not have control over our own computers. At that time your "rights" will be a moot point.
So the only real answer, regardless if one agrees with ad blocking or not, is to ***STOP USING YOUTUBE!***
Youtube does NOT have the right to rape my ears and eyeballs. And I'm not about to hand it over to them just so I can see some AI generated youtube poop.
In fact, I still had a youtube account with some old videos sitting out there. I never agreed to advertising on them, and they were inserting it anyway sometimes. The other day I finally pulled the plug and deleted all the videos. I can no longer support Google and their continuing abuse.
Actually, to answer my earlier rhetorical question, at present, it stops at copyright. I am not allowed to edit TV content and redistribute it. Similarly, a third party can not remove commercials for me. Ad blockers do not redistribute the content - your are changing it on your own computer, under your control. As such, yes, you currently have the right to do so.
Now, if you like a site enough to allow eye rape so they can get money, that is your decision. But sites do NOT have some magical absolute right to make money from advertising. It may suck, but if that is the only way they can stay in business, then they don't deserve to be in business.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Wednesday November 15 2023, @03:21AM
I started blocking YT ads the day I was served a 30 minute unskippable scamomercial before I was to be allowed to watch 5 minutes of fluff. (And yes, I bailed.)
Shortly before, I'd watched some vid, then left the tab open... and after a while it started continuously playing loud, obnoxious ads for one scam after another. (Was busy elsewhere but could hear it. Thought it was the neighbor's radio run amok until I came back inside and saw what was happening.)
Fair? Wrong? After all that, I don't care.
YT used to run an ad (static or video with the sound off, Ive seen both) up at the top of the Suggesteds stack. This was neither invasive to what I was watching nor annoying enough to block. Generally it related in some way to whatever I intended to watch. I'd be fine with that. I am not fine with a lopsided obligation ratio.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 14 2023, @02:44AM (5 children)
You know how to block ads? Well done, good for you! Now if you bunch didn't go around encouraging EVERYONE to block ads, it would have taken a lot longer to get to this point.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Opportunist on Tuesday November 14 2023, @09:12AM
Unless you're able and willing to keep malicious actors from abusing your system to cause harm to me, I am absolutely within my rights to ensure that your system does not endanger my security and privacy. Get your act together and we talk.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday November 14 2023, @12:20PM (1 child)
Why? We don't place any value on the free stuff. Why should we pay for it? Give us something we value, and we'll likely pay for it. The evidence to support that is, we pay the $$ necessary to connect to the internet. Every month, those subscriptions are paid. But, we don't value your content enough to pay for the stuff you are offering.
Alter the deal, Darth, go ahead.
“I have become friends with many school shooters” - Tampon Tim Walz
(Score: 4, Informative) by DannyB on Tuesday November 14 2023, @07:21PM
For many years I paid for cable TV.
For many years I paid and still pay for streaming. Although we're now cutting back due to rising prices, less content, and content being spread amongst too many streaming services.
If you don't price yourself out of the market, people will pay for something of value. Its a time honored way of doing business.
People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Tuesday November 14 2023, @05:54PM (1 child)
I know a better model: responsible advertising. Making sure you don't push malware or scams to your users. And not invading your users' privacy.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Tork on Tuesday November 14 2023, @07:18PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Opportunist on Tuesday November 14 2023, @09:05AM
If corporations don't need any justification to rape my privacy and security, I need no justification to keep them from doing it.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by xorsyst on Tuesday November 14 2023, @12:24PM (1 child)
A couple of years ago I decided that paying for youtube would actually be a decent deal - as it includes music streaming too. A family account for all of us was a price I was willing to pay.
But google, in their infinite wisdom, don't allow domain accounts to be members of a family - despite the fact this was a use case they suggested years ago when I set it up. 4 individual premium accounts is way too much, and faffing about having 2 accounts would be very annoying.
So, instead, we keep just using youtube for free and blocking ads where possible.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bzipitidoo on Tuesday November 14 2023, @04:08PM
Yes, so much of this isn't an argument about whether compensation is deserved, it's how much compensation is deserved, and what strings are attached. Lot of disingenuous arguing on the part of platforms that they're being totally reasonable when they aren't.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by bzipitidoo on Tuesday November 14 2023, @01:16PM (1 child)
It's 2 separate issues: the business model of advertising revenue, just like radio and broadcast TV, and malicious payloads.
I have never heard of there being problems of that sort with advertisements on broadcast TV. The medium doesn't support malware, so that's not a worry. As for obscene content, there is none, though commercials about diapers, toilet paper, and regularity sometimes push the boundaries. Advertisers know they'll be in big trouble if they embarrass the TV station. There's been contention about such things as the ratio of advertising to content, with 1/3 time spent on ads being the limit that most viewers will tolerate, but the model has been a success. Even with people using commercial breaks to go to the bathroom or grab a snack, arguably an abuse of the system akin to ad blocking, it works. Sure, they wish it worked better, but it evidently works well enough that advertisers keep using it.
That video streaming on the Internet has a problem with ads possibly being scams or containing viruses is total justification for blocking the whole mess. I suppose the reason that's a problem is that content platforms can't be bothered to vet ads, or more like, there's little to no law enforcement on this beat like there is on broadcast TV in the form of the FCC. No doubt most or all of it is automated, too much quantity to involve any more humans than necessary. And how typical to try to blame the viewers, whine that viewers should just suck it up.
But there are other problems with ads on video streams. A big one is the violation of that custom that ads shall take no more than 1/3 of your viewing time. If I want to see some 10 second clip, maybe show it to someone else, we are not going to sit through 2 30 second ads just to see 10 seconds of desired content! Even that crap of oh so generously being allowed to press "skip ad" after still being forced to watch the 1st 5 seconds of each ad is unacceptable. I'll just not bother. No 10 second video is worth that. And I know it would be stupid easy for the platform to check how long the requested clip lasts, and adjust the advertising accordingly.
Another problem is the mystery technical issue, leaving the viewer to suppose their browser or system needs to be restarted, or that their Internet connection is having issues, when it is actually the platform's problem and the platform could have but didn't throw up anything explanatory, no, they just left up a message that the content is still loading, loading, still loading ... ads. They've purposefully programed it to break if ads can't be loaded, and they've refused to tell users that, out of umbrage that users deserve to be kept in the dark as punishment for refusing to allow ads. Maybe not as severe as the infamous incidents in which Turbo Tax installed copy protection that put all the data on users' systems at risk of being lost, and in which Sony's music CDs installed malware on users' systems, but enough like those to be unacceptable. That kind of user abuse is still far too common, and too many abusers still think they're fully justified in doing such things. Until it's settled that that sort of crap is unacceptable, until platforms fully agree of their own will, freely and without feeling the least grudging about it, to not do that, it is yet another reason that all by itself is enough to justify ad blocking.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Wednesday November 15 2023, @03:27AM
Short form:
They're not playing fair.
Well then, we know the rules of engagement, don't we..,
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by RamiK on Tuesday November 14 2023, @02:16PM (2 children)
Youtube ads are a tax on laziness, ignorance and stupidity and we should all thank google for doing their part in promoting computer literacy among our nations' youth.
compiling...
(Score: 2, Funny) by cereal_burpist on Wednesday November 15 2023, @04:33AM (1 child)
(Score: 3, Informative) by RamiK on Wednesday November 15 2023, @12:05PM
Yes there was actually. LEAP [leap.se]'s Go project VPN-Hole [0xacab.org] from last year's summer of code [withgoogle.com] does ad-blocking: https://leap.se/blog/go-library-to-block-ads/ [leap.se]
compiling...
(Score: 5, Interesting) by DannyB on Tuesday November 14 2023, @07:17PM
I've said it before but: Advertising destroys everything it ever touches [soylentnews.org]
Billboards seemed innocuous. End result: some formerly nice landscapes littered with billboards as far as the eye can see, especially on interstate highways. City blocks littered with astonishing amounts of visual noise from ads and billboards. Then electric commercial signs. Now electronic road billboards. Even in remote areas to keep people awake who wouldn't have been bothered by city lights.
Magazines. They eventually become more ads than content. But BYTE magazine [archive.org] is famous for this. At first the ads were useful. Later you couldn't find the articles for the ads. Then the content changed to become IBM-PC centric. Then it became a teaser of what we would know as Computer Shopper, pure ads.
Newspapers.
Radio. A vast wasteland.
Television. It had a tolerable number of ads in TV's golden era. Then the ads increased, and the quality decreased. By the late 70's everyone was SICK of network TV and Cable started taking off. The premise, was no ads or fewer ads. But that fewer ads is always the devil's toe in the door. Fast forward to the 90's. Cable TV programming went from great to crap and ads increased just like they did for network TV in the 70's. Almost half of the airtime is ads. And then to add insult, all the cable companies put these animated ads directly over the actual show content right after a run of ads.
Consider the web. Ads came. At first it seemed good. Revenue for sites. But then deceptive ads appeared. Ad networks become significant vectors for malware. The ads started auto-playing sounds and videos. Gigantic flashing bright animated seizure inducing graphics. Popup Windows -- yes opening additional browser windows without permission. Closing each popup window opened four more popup windows. Then popup overlays. And sites where a story was ten pages long, but each page was loaded with ads, with only one paragraph of text. And "Interstitial" ads. Look up that word. It has to do with pond scum, in between the sand grains in soil or acquatic sediments. And now we have the ad wars where user agents have to block ads just for safety and sanity.
Now we have internet streaming. Netflix is still the ideal model. You pay for it, and no ads. Also HBO streaming. Or Starz streaming. But on the other hand look at Hulu. You can have ads, or pay more for the ad free version. But now even the ad free version has an ad at the beginning. WTF???
Years ago there were articles that Netflix was considering ads. I wrote them a passionate plea to reconsider ever doing this. Raise your prices, but don't introduce ads. It's a slippery slope. It's the camel's nose under the tent. Once you let ads in, it will eventually destroy your business. Not overnight, for sure. It will initially seem great -- from your POV. But like a cancer it is, it will creep and creep. Viewership will drop. Quality of content will suffer. More time will be filled with ads.
Look at what happened to DVDs. Unskippable ads for "upcoming" movies that were released 20 years ago. I bought that DVD as a form of entertainment, not as an advertising billboard. My browser is not an advertising billboard. My streaming TV is not an advertising billboard.
Ad billboards are an eyesore blight on some otherwise beautiful landscapes.
Now advertisers think it is their natural God given right to track every last detail of your life from the cradle to the grave. And possibly beyond.
And advertisers think it is their right to execute code on my system instead of just showing me static or moving images.
Some now view the web as a "broadcast" medium. Including even your local ISP viewing it this way.
Every new form of communication has two major points of interest. The first is when that new form of communication is used for pr0n. This propels that form of communication to popularity. The second is when it gets advertising, which signals its eventual destruction.
Mark my words, eventually your phone lock-screen will have an ad when you first wake up the phone.
If gas pumps already have video ads, it is a sign of worse things to come.
Finally, as I've said before, advertisers won't quit until they can put ads on the inside of your eyelids. And even then they won't quit.
Let's not even get into the parasites like email spam or snail mail spam, telemarketing, and robo call scams.
Almost without exception, advertising is deceptive. Claims are, at best, um, exaggerated. If not outright lies. Any claims are cancelled out by the fine print. Especially that any representations of performance, usability, suitability for purpose in the ad are overridden by reading or not reading this notice included in ultra fine print.
People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.