4 ms·

My claim is that it does work. Astoundingly well. My further claim is that it is not in the public interest.

mozumder 9y ago
No shit. The world isn't your personal charity for you. Advertisers don't owe you anything. But if you really want to get blown away, it actually does serve the public interest, because it increases commerce, and any sale is an increase in the GDP. Did you thank advertisers for growing the economy?
- ionised 9y ago
  Do you think people owe advertisers a living?
  - thecrazyone 9y ago
    No you owe the content publishers a living if you're consuming their content else they go out of business. Ads is how content publishers make money. Advertisers in fact pay money for publishing their ads.
    - ionised 9y ago
      Show me the contract that states what you just did and I'll agree.
    - pbhjpbhj 9y ago
      Following your argument above, if the content publishers don't like it they should stop publishing content rather than enforcing your particular idea of an implicit contract. If not then your supposed liberalism is strongly biased against those who disprove of advertising.
- apk-d 9y ago
  Would your spendings suffer a decrease if a magic virus wiped all ads from existence? Personally, I think I'd find stuff to buy all the time.
- jiggunjer 9y ago
  So the only important thing is commerce? Let's deregulate everything then: drugs, sex, human trafficking, banks (shivers).
  - thecrazyone 9y ago
    Let's indeed deregulate everything. Picking from the items you've mentioned: drugs: if someone is putting substances in their own body, they don't need your permission and you don't have a say on what they can do with their body, they own it, its their property next, sex (say even prostitution): Two consenting adults having sex. What's your problem? Same as above, you should've no interest in what others are doing with their bodies. You don't own their bodies. Human Trafficking: Forced human trafficking is bad. Everyone should buy protection/insurance against this from private businesses (security agencies). Voluntary trafficking is none of your business. Banks: banks are over-regulated. Let them run like other businesses. Don't bail them out if they fail (not with tax dollars at least). Let them fail as other businesses do. Let better banks take the positions of the ones which can't serve customer interest I would appreciate/welcome any arguments against what I said
    - jiggunjer 9y ago
      Mentioning a single pro for each subject is naive. The arguments for and against each of those are less shallow than you make it appear. You completely ignore systematic detrimental effects on society.
fauigerzigerk 9y ago
I think people will always try to influence others, and I don't think advertising is the worst form of doing it. If you say that it's not in the public interest you'd have to compare it to alternatives that are. That said, I think there should be restrictions put on the methods that advertisers are allowed to use. What currently happens in online advertising hurts everybody, including those who rely on ad funded business models. Another issue is aonymity. In a world without advertising, you'd have to pay for everything directly. Making anonymous payments is extremely difficult and easily outlawed entirely.
- thecrazyone 9y ago
  I'm a libertarian. And putting/enforcing rules on someone who's not aggressing you because you don't like it seems like needing coercion. You're voluntarily consuming ad-based content, no one's forcing you. If you don't like their ad-supported content, shouldn't you use only content which paid for in different ways? Why should anyone be restricted in their actions because of your opinions?
  - pbhjpbhj 9y ago
    Ads are embroigled in to modern Western culture. Do you expect us to lock ourselves away in the woods? Why should we be restricted in our actions in order to allow product placement in every cultural artefact, advertising on your museum ticket, carefully placed concession stands in "free" public spaces, etc., etc.?
  - fauigerzigerk 9y ago
    >Why should anyone be restricted in their actions because of your opinions? Because the rights and protections under the law that advertisers rely on only exist because of my opinion and the opinion of other citizens. Without the law, the concept of private property would be largely undefined. Corporations would not exist. There would be no limited liability, no chapter 11, no enforceable contracts, no trademarks, no patents, no copyrights, no courts, no police, nothing of the sort. If we want to enjoy the protection that the rule of law affords us, we will have to accept that there needs to be some sort of social process that determines what our laws should be. It's a negotiation. And no, using ad-supported services is not voluntary in any realistic sense of the word. There are many essential necessities of modern life that are ad-supported and have no real alternatives. Also, voluntary is a rather ill defined term when it comes to things that most people cannot even know or understand.

No shit. The world isn't your personal charity for you. Advertisers don't owe you anything. But if you really want to get blown away, it actually does serve the public interest, because it increases commerce, and any sale is an increase in the GDP. Did you thank advertisers for growing the economy?

ionised 9y ago
Do you think people owe advertisers a living?
- thecrazyone 9y ago
  No you owe the content publishers a living if you're consuming their content else they go out of business. Ads is how content publishers make money. Advertisers in fact pay money for publishing their ads.
  - ionised 9y ago
    Show me the contract that states what you just did and I'll agree.
  - pbhjpbhj 9y ago
    Following your argument above, if the content publishers don't like it they should stop publishing content rather than enforcing your particular idea of an implicit contract. If not then your supposed liberalism is strongly biased against those who disprove of advertising.
apk-d 9y ago
Would your spendings suffer a decrease if a magic virus wiped all ads from existence? Personally, I think I'd find stuff to buy all the time.
jiggunjer 9y ago
So the only important thing is commerce? Let's deregulate everything then: drugs, sex, human trafficking, banks (shivers).
- thecrazyone 9y ago
  Let's indeed deregulate everything. Picking from the items you've mentioned: drugs: if someone is putting substances in their own body, they don't need your permission and you don't have a say on what they can do with their body, they own it, its their property next, sex (say even prostitution): Two consenting adults having sex. What's your problem? Same as above, you should've no interest in what others are doing with their bodies. You don't own their bodies. Human Trafficking: Forced human trafficking is bad. Everyone should buy protection/insurance against this from private businesses (security agencies). Voluntary trafficking is none of your business. Banks: banks are over-regulated. Let them run like other businesses. Don't bail them out if they fail (not with tax dollars at least). Let them fail as other businesses do. Let better banks take the positions of the ones which can't serve customer interest I would appreciate/welcome any arguments against what I said
  - jiggunjer 9y ago
    Mentioning a single pro for each subject is naive. The arguments for and against each of those are less shallow than you make it appear. You completely ignore systematic detrimental effects on society.

fauigerzigerk 9y ago

I think people will always try to influence others, and I don't think advertising is the worst form of doing it. If you say that it's not in the public interest you'd have to compare it to alternatives that are. That said, I think there should be restrictions put on the methods that advertisers are allowed to use. What currently happens in online advertising hurts everybody, including those who rely on ad funded business models. Another issue is aonymity. In a world without advertising, you'd have to pay for everything directly. Making anonymous payments is extremely difficult and easily outlawed entirely.

thecrazyone 9y ago
I'm a libertarian. And putting/enforcing rules on someone who's not aggressing you because you don't like it seems like needing coercion. You're voluntarily consuming ad-based content, no one's forcing you. If you don't like their ad-supported content, shouldn't you use only content which paid for in different ways? Why should anyone be restricted in their actions because of your opinions?
- pbhjpbhj 9y ago
  Ads are embroigled in to modern Western culture. Do you expect us to lock ourselves away in the woods? Why should we be restricted in our actions in order to allow product placement in every cultural artefact, advertising on your museum ticket, carefully placed concession stands in "free" public spaces, etc., etc.?
- fauigerzigerk 9y ago
  >Why should anyone be restricted in their actions because of your opinions? Because the rights and protections under the law that advertisers rely on only exist because of my opinion and the opinion of other citizens. Without the law, the concept of private property would be largely undefined. Corporations would not exist. There would be no limited liability, no chapter 11, no enforceable contracts, no trademarks, no patents, no copyrights, no courts, no police, nothing of the sort. If we want to enjoy the protection that the rule of law affords us, we will have to accept that there needs to be some sort of social process that determines what our laws should be. It's a negotiation. And no, using ad-supported services is not voluntary in any realistic sense of the word. There are many essential necessities of modern life that are ad-supported and have no real alternatives. Also, voluntary is a rather ill defined term when it comes to things that most people cannot even know or understand.