5 ms·
Yes, ads are annoying, a security risk, and obstruct content, but: they also are a deliberate attempt to subconsciously influence my decision making. Saying, "h
by oconnore 10y ago
Yes, ads are annoying, a security risk, and obstruct content, but: they also are a deliberate attempt to subconsciously influence my decision making. Saying, "here is this product you may not have known about, here is what it does" is one thing. Showing me pictures of attractive people to trick me into associating <brand> with <good feels> is malicious.
Why would I agree to that?
- vthallam 10y agoIf you watch TV/look at billboards, you are already being tricked everyday. Why advts online are so malicious? Edit: This was a genuine question and I don't understand the down votes :|
- blacksmith_tb 10y agoThey aren't more malicious than billboards (which of course have been banned in some major cities [1]) or other public advertising, but they are equally malicious. [edit] Having said that, the 'security risk' angle does make online ads more malicious, potentially... 1: https://www.newdream.org/resources/sao-paolo-ad-ban https://www.newdream.org/resources/sao-paolo-ad-ban
- oconnore 10y agoI subscribe to Netflix for that reason. Online ads are not uniquely malicious, although they are more pervasive (even reading a magazine, the page I am actively reading will not have an ad in between paragraphs, though the next page might). I do think modern marketing firms (and often therefore web) have developed more effective -- and therefore bad -- techniques to have the effect they are paid for. PS. I upvoted you because I don't think it was a bad question. If I had to guess, it may be misconstrued as a [bad] rhetorical question arguing that "you already have to put up with X, so it's pointless/inconsistent/illogical to reduce your exposure to X".
- vthallam 10y agoTrue! Guess a couple of banner advts on the side of the page wouldn't bother anyone, the intrusive one's definitely are the reason most hate advts.
- dudul 10y agoI work in ad-tech. Let me tell you that online advts has access to a lot of info about you. Much more than you would imagine. So yeah, nobody said TV-ads weren't malicious, but ad-tech is taking it to another level.
- unfunco 10y agoBillboards don't reach into my pocket and try to steal my identification, nor do they spontaneously come-alive and follow me around the city in which I saw the billboard. My TV also knows very little about me.
- charonn0 10y agoI can ignore a billboard or mute a TV ad and the advertiser has no way of knowing.
- KurtMueller 10y agoWho says tv and billboards aren't just as malicious? Ad blockers make it easy to purge ads from my online experience. Fortunately, I just don't watch television and when I do, I always mute and look away from advertisements. Billboard advertisements is harder to control since I drive myself everywhere.
- majewsky 10y agoThey are malicious, too. But I can't block them just yet. (I'm eagerly waiting for an augmented-reality adblocker.)
- ourmandave 10y agoThat would destroy Nascar as we know it. It would look like empty track with the sound of cars going by.
- Dirlewanger 10y agoIn those cases though, they are just there. They aren't scanning my irises for how many times I've seen them Minority Report-style. ...yet.
- seanp2k2 10y agoI don't watch TV (only Netflix) and wish there was an option for billboard ad blocking. It'd be an interesting art / social commentary project if e.g. Someone started draping black opaque plastic over billboards with drones and put the ABP logo on them. Feel free to steal this idea :)
- vitd 10y agoFWIW, I "block" TV ads by either watching the show over the internet and paying not to have ads (iTunes, Netflix, etc.), or by recording them on a DVR and skipping the ads. I avoid newspapers and magazines both because of ads and because the need for ad revenue has compromised the quality of the product.
- bigredtech 10y agoYou should find the support channels at any websites you visit that don't offer ad free viewing options via paid subscriptions or otherwise and encourage them to add support for that. Then you can pay each of these websites individually. If you're not into that, give some funding to a startup which is working to make micropayments on websites viable to remove ad-enabled content. If you're not into funding something like that, try creating your own company or means to do that or joining a company which is working to advance ad-free viewing. Now, if you're not into that, then stop visiting any site which has ads on it. Lastly, if you're not into that, then suck it up and just view the ads which enable revenue for these sites to run.
- oconnore 10y ago1) They don't ask for my consent, I'm not going to worry about theirs. 2) I find that ad supported content tends to be not worth paying for. I do pay for subscriptions to magazines and sites that are worthwhile (a paywall is a very good indicator that you're not wasting your time).
- hsod 10y ago> 1) They don't ask for my consent, I'm not going to worry about theirs. What's your take on this thought experiment: Imagine a giant barrel of apples on the side of the road with a coffee can next to it. There's a sign that says "Take an Apple, Leave a Penny" Now imagine you don't carry pennies for moral and/or pragmatic reasons. They're too heavy, or you don't want to support Big Copper, whatever. But you want an apple. Do you take one?
- vitd 10y agoIt's not really equivalent since you taking one diminishes the number left for other paying customers. Let's do a realistic thought experiment that's actually fair: Imagine you have a movie that you love. It's showing tonight on an over-the-air channel that inserts ads throughout it. You decide to record the show and watch it later. Do you skip the ads?
- spacehome 10y agoI would add to that that for me, my attention is a finite resource. If I can stop your ads from taking it up, I will.