SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The Atlantic has posted an interesting article on internet advertising calling it The Internet's Original Sin. Written by Ethan Zuckerman, who worked at Tripod during the birth of online ads, the article does a good job identifying the issues with relying on ads as the primary source of funding behind the internet. Ethan also speculates on some possible solutions to the problem—which mostly lean toward subscriptions as funding.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Advertising: the Internet's Original Sin
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 26 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Hacking's just another word for nothing left to kludge.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 19 2014, @12:28AM
...without them, EVERYTHING on the Internet would be paywalled/'signup_(for_free [at first])_then_loginwalled' or otherwise disappear from the Internet for good!
As more and more people block ads with the HOSTS file and 3rd-party software like NoScript, this might actually come to pass!
Yet another reason to move Planet Earth to a cash-free, resource-based economy where money can be TRULY said to be 'no object' and non-existent as it SHOULD be...as it was in the beginning if you believe....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Venus_Project [wikipedia.org]
http://www.togetherweteach.com/TCB/Old/01Genesis/o01gen01.htm [togetherweteach.com]
http://www.togetherweteach.com/TCB/Old/01Genesis/o01gen02.htm [togetherweteach.com]
http://www.togetherweteach.com/TCB/Old/01Genesis/o01gen03.htm [togetherweteach.com]
If you want an ad-free Internet supported by cash, then Big Business won--EVERY WEBSITE ON THE INTERNET has to turn into a store with products and services for sale in order to pay the bill(s) to their owners directly to even REMAIN on the Internet at an absolute minimum! :( :P
Internet search engines are the best tools available to find ANY website on the Internet. Take the ad money away from ALL of them and they are gone in a heartbeat with NO OTHER WAY to easily pay for the MASSIVE technological infrastructure REQUIRED to operate a truly SERIOUS search engine like Google and Bing.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by GWRedDragon on Tuesday August 19 2014, @12:46AM
Slow down on the capslock there :)
There have always been, and continue to be, tons of not for profit sites which are run as a hobby by enthusiasts. These tend to be the best sites anyway, and when they become commercialized to the point that they are no longer fit for purpose then people defect.
Often, when these sites have ads at all, they are directly contracted with businesses. This type tends to be the most useful and least obtrusive form of ads on the Internet.
The great thing about liberty is that people are free to choose the business model that best fits their needs; if there are enough people willing to volunteer their time, free happens. If you as a consumer demand things which cannot be done by hobbyists, then you should expect to pay in some manner, because you are asking for something of value.
And just in case you were going to say there are no hobbyist sites on the Internet, keep in mind that you are using one right now. Also keep in mind that things run for free by volunteers will tend to be more ephemeral than ones making a profit, but that by no means makes them an inferior choice. Slashdot, for instance, was a great site for awhile, and most of us got a lot of enjoyment out of it. Now, on to the new.
[Insert witty message here]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 19 2014, @03:21AM
The Green Site's beta program was the LAST straw for me and I found my way here.
Thanks, NCcommander! :D
If you HAVE to 'sell out' to keep SN going, please read this first:
http://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?sid=3447&cid=82880 [soylentnews.org]
If you have to 'sell out' FOR REAL as /. did years ago, SN faces the similar fate of its users leaving for another site elsewhere on the internet like SN is RIGHT NOW at the time of this post....
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 19 2014, @12:59AM
So, what, back to the barter system? Fuck that, I don't want to have to go through a bunch of Legend of Zelda-style miniquest exchanges just to get food. Even in Roddenberry's futuristic utopia, where human society had 'evolved beyond the need for money', money still existed and was widely used (gold-pressed latinum).
The CONCEPT of money - an abstract placeholder for resources or labor - is great, and is basically the epitome of the barter system, so its not going nowhere. It would be nice, however, if money was not required to live and only used for optional luxuries. Thats communism though, and only people who worship Satan and bathe in the blood of the virgin babies they've sacrificed after raping them want to force communism on everyone.
(Score: 4, Funny) by cafebabe on Tuesday August 19 2014, @01:23AM
Dammit! Have I been pushing communism without doing the fun stuff?
1702845791×2
(Score: 1) by Darth Turbogeek on Tuesday August 19 2014, @02:12AM
Funny about what you say about Communism - the early Christian community is described in Acts as being pretty much the Communist ideal and if anything, the current capitalist system is the spawn of Satan.
Might want to think that one over :)
(Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Tuesday August 19 2014, @04:14AM
Yep, charging interest is the sin of usury, very bad sin, might keep you out of heaven, you and your camel.
The questionable part of capitalism, however, are the related features of commodity fetishism and alienation. The first is an obsession with objects, property, or wealth and the incorrect notion that things are important in themselves, or possess intrinsic value. Alienation is the displacement of self-identity into external things, such as wealth, which separates people from others as well as themselves. Actual, real natural human are what they do, not what they own, and they will do things (this is called "labor") even if they are not paid, once past the level of sustenance.
(Score: 2) by Ryuugami on Tuesday August 19 2014, @05:13AM
Ah, the moneylenders in the temple, the time when Jesus went all (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ on their sorry asses.
Not to mention the fish-and-wine-duplicating incident. It's quite possible that FWAI (Fish and Wine Association of Israel) are the ones who pushed Romans to crucify him, I say!
If a shit storm's on the horizon, it's good to know far enough ahead you can at least bring along an umbrella. - D.Weber
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 19 2014, @07:15AM
Gordon Gekko's 'Greed is good' and other memorable quotes from WALL STREET (1987)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0094291/quotes [imdb.com]
Advertising itself as a whole feeds on peoples greed and pride when the items advertised are 'big ticket' ones like luxury cars like the notorious Lexus ads....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16hPBsw2Uy4 [youtube.com]
The sad thing about this ad is that it's basically a ripoff of the famous MAXELL breaking glass ad Ella Fitzgerald did back in the day.
Alas, I can't seem to find it on YouTube so here is the next best thing with the MythBusters
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9CeUoEgOYM [youtube.com]
The ONLY difference between a luxury car and a used $300 'beater' from 15-20 years ago is basically the pricetag--both are vehicles that will get you from point A to point B without walking, riding a bycicle, riding on/in someone else's vehicle, or taking some sort of public transportation. If you want to get to point B in speed snf/or in style you WILL pay for it...or steal it to go joyriding or as a professional car thief.
Another factor is commercial broadcast televison where the advertisers are the customers and the audience is the product sold to them by the TV networks. This was POWERFULLY AND VIVIDLY summed up by Arthur Jensen (Ned Beatty) in NETWORK (1976)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKkRDMil0bw [youtube.com]
Yet another factor is product placement. Advertisers know people ignore 'real' ads that are shown in 'commercial breaks' so they 'slip' them into the entertainment programs they watch. For observant people, product placement is PAINFULLY obvious unless it is SUBTLY done or is the point of the program!
I only know of three examples:
1) The 'breakfast scene' from SUPERMAN (1978).
This product placement for Cheerios is the GOLD STANDARD of the technique and is the ONLY one of its type. All the rest I've seen stick out like sore thumbs with varying degrees of obviousness. For example, I've seen a number of Jackie Chan's contemporary action films. They were underwritten in part by Mitsubishi Motors through the use of Mitsubishi cars in his films. The way the camera is set up to frame and linger on the Mitsubishi logo on the car's hood is quite 'convenient' and obvious. If you can ignore/overlook that you can enjoy Chan's contemporary actioners like POLICE STORY (1985) and NEW POLICE STORY (2004) which I deem to be Chan's two masterpieces--one directed by him! :D
--iMDB user Libretio [emphasis mine]
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0386005/reviews-19 [imdb.com]
See, even someone else noticed product placement in a movie and it took them 'out of the moment'! :(
The other two movies that 'ran' on product placement were
2) THE TRUMAN SHOW (1998)
This movie revolves around a reality show that revolves around the title character Truman Burbank portrayed by Jim Carrey. Instead of commercial breaks, the producers use product placement in order to underwrite it with bizzare and disturbing results!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Inscky6EyQ8 [youtube.com]
At the time of this post, it seem the uploader mixed in additonal audio to try to avoid YouTube's 'copyright bot'. It didn't work as the content was identified but the copyright owners of either the song or the movie have not acted and had the clip taken down due to copyright infringement.
3) THE GREATEST MOVIE EVER SOLD (2011)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1743720/ [imdb.com]
This film is 'exactly what it says on the tin'. I didn't waste my time watching this film as you get a peek at what goes on behind the scenes to put product placement in the movies and TV shows you watch.
Here is a whole discussion about good/bad product placement moments:
What do you think is the best/most obnoxious Product Placement?
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1743720/board/nest/180492187 [imdb.com]
In order to keep the gears of capitalism going around and around stuff must be purchased by consumers constantly. Essential consumable commodities are understandable like food but the captains of industry aren't satisfied with that so they came up with the concept of
'planned obsolscence'. This topic is explored in the brilliant, chilling documentary PYRAMIDS OF WASTE (2010) aka THE LIGHTBULB CONSPIRACY.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ViI6uAxqEOY [youtube.com]
Writer Vance Packard wrote about this topic the book THE WASTE MAKERS which was originally published in 1960.
In one celebrated case, the mayor of Sao Paulo Brazil, South America had a law passed and had ALL outdoor commercial signage REMOVED!
Here is an example image--literaly 'before' and 'after'!
http://www.worldchanging.com/postimages/article/6926_largearticlephoto.jpg [worldchanging.com]
Disturbing at first but welcome relief to the citizenry constantly bombarded by sales pitches from all the outdoor advertising that was in place before the ban.
A full 'after' slide show: Sao Paulo: No Logo
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tonydemarco/sets/72157600075508212/show/ [flickr.com]
It is strange to see all the emptiness left by the removed signs but it allows one a respite from the 'hard sell' sensory input--giving them a chance to meditate and reflect on the situation at hand and how it affects them and continue to do so in the future.
Webpage article linked to the above slideshow
http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/006973.html [worldchanging.com]
As long as money makes the world go around, there will always be capitalism.
At least in one case mentioned above, something was done to keep it in check with EFFECTIVE results! :D