5 ms·

Let’s talk about “acceptable ads”. Do you think they exist? I don’t. I avoid ads for two reasons: first that they’re fundamentally biased, manipulative informa

by twhb 9y ago

Let’s talk about “acceptable ads”. Do you think they exist? I don’t. I avoid ads for two reasons: first that they’re fundamentally biased, manipulative information sources, second that they drain attention, screen space, battery life, etc. I’m much more worried about the first than the second, yet “acceptable ads” (partially) addresses the second without touching the first.

dragonwriter 9y ago
> I avoid ads for two reasons: first that they’re fundamentally biased, manipulative information sources Humans are fundamentally biased, manipulative information sources. (Overt, not organic or otherwise covert) ads are just human acts where the bias and intended manipulation are unusually transparent.
- twhb 9y ago
  Do you mean that it’s more reliable to discern the truth from ads than when the bias isn’t clear? Isn’t it even more reliable when interests are aligned, for example in the use of turn signals?
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > Do you mean that it’s more reliable to discern the truth from ads than when the bias isn’t clear? No, I think that it's easier to reject (overt) ads manipulation because their bias is clear, compared to forms of manipulation where the goal of the manipulation is less clear; this doesn't help you get to the truth (except in some cases where that is revealed by what even the ad is forced to admit against its interest, or hinted at by what it avoids) from the ad content itself.
acdha 9y ago
> I avoid ads for two reasons: first that they’re fundamentally biased, manipulative information sources, second that they drain attention, screen space, battery life, etc. Neither of these points need to be true. Consider if someone had a text ad which said “We made widgets. Click here to see our widgets”. There's nothing manipulative about that, it need not use more than a small amount of network or CPU to deliver, and all but the most extreme members of the no logo camp would tend to agree that there's nothing manipulative about it.
- twhb 9y ago
  Are you saying this as somebody who advertises, or who views ads?
  - acdha 9y ago
    As someone who doesn't like broad, sweeping statements which are incorrect. For the record, I don't buy ads and I subscribe to sites like ArsTechnica.com which allow me to pay to disable ads.
    - twhb 9y ago
      I don't believe it's incorrect, but thanks for letting me know you do. Genuinely - like I said, I just want to talk about “acceptable ads”.
      - acdha 9y ago
        Here's why I said it's incorrect: > first that they’re fundamentally biased, manipulative information sources Is an NPR-style “this program is sponsored by <big company>” manipulative or biased? What about the Amazon ads you get on a Google search for most consumer products, where it's clear who paid for them, they make no claim that the product is the best product or that they have the lowest prices, only stating that you can buy one from them, etc.? > second that they drain attention, screen space, battery life, Do Google text ads really do any of those? What about a static JPEG? Remember, I'm not saying that the state of online advertising isn't terrible but that it's not fundamentally so. The industry has raced to the bottom but it'd clear up in days if publishers stopped allowing offensive ads to run on their sites or Chrome started actively blocking them.
pq0ak2nnd 9y ago
I would say for free services, I'm ok with ads (like metafilter)... but for free sites that collect our every click and keystroke and sell it for gobs of money to marketing megacorops, they should be paying us!
shaki-dora 9y ago
I don't know how you can argue against all ads, no exception, without at least somehow addressing the problem of content currently financed by ads. Journalism provides a necessary service for a democracy, and unpaid bloggers haven't actually made much of a dent into real, investigative journalism. Hell, they haven't even made a dent into regular ask-questions-at-press-conferences journalism. Which leaves paywalls. But even if I everyone bought subscriptions to the top 5 or so publications they read regularly, we would all drastically reduce the variety of sources we get our news from. No fan of Breitbart is going to pay for the New York Times, even though now, they might (sometimes accidentally) come across an article offering them a glimpse of real journalism. It's really easy to try: Just for a month or so, don't visit any sites showing advertisement that you haven't paid for.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

by twhb 9y ago

dragonwriter 9y ago

> I avoid ads for two reasons: first that they’re fundamentally biased, manipulative information sources Humans are fundamentally biased, manipulative information sources. (Overt, not organic or otherwise covert) ads are just human acts where the bias and intended manipulation are unusually transparent.

twhb 9y ago
Do you mean that it’s more reliable to discern the truth from ads than when the bias isn’t clear? Isn’t it even more reliable when interests are aligned, for example in the use of turn signals?
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > Do you mean that it’s more reliable to discern the truth from ads than when the bias isn’t clear? No, I think that it's easier to reject (overt) ads manipulation because their bias is clear, compared to forms of manipulation where the goal of the manipulation is less clear; this doesn't help you get to the truth (except in some cases where that is revealed by what even the ad is forced to admit against its interest, or hinted at by what it avoids) from the ad content itself.

acdha 9y ago

> I avoid ads for two reasons: first that they’re fundamentally biased, manipulative information sources, second that they drain attention, screen space, battery life, etc. Neither of these points need to be true. Consider if someone had a text ad which said “We made widgets. Click here to see our widgets”. There's nothing manipulative about that, it need not use more than a small amount of network or CPU to deliver, and all but the most extreme members of the no logo camp would tend to agree that there's nothing manipulative about it.

twhb 9y ago
Are you saying this as somebody who advertises, or who views ads?
- acdha 9y ago
  As someone who doesn't like broad, sweeping statements which are incorrect. For the record, I don't buy ads and I subscribe to sites like ArsTechnica.com which allow me to pay to disable ads.
  - twhb 9y ago
    I don't believe it's incorrect, but thanks for letting me know you do. Genuinely - like I said, I just want to talk about “acceptable ads”.
    - acdha 9y ago
      Here's why I said it's incorrect: > first that they’re fundamentally biased, manipulative information sources Is an NPR-style “this program is sponsored by <big company>” manipulative or biased? What about the Amazon ads you get on a Google search for most consumer products, where it's clear who paid for them, they make no claim that the product is the best product or that they have the lowest prices, only stating that you can buy one from them, etc.? > second that they drain attention, screen space, battery life, Do Google text ads really do any of those? What about a static JPEG? Remember, I'm not saying that the state of online advertising isn't terrible but that it's not fundamentally so. The industry has raced to the bottom but it'd clear up in days if publishers stopped allowing offensive ads to run on their sites or Chrome started actively blocking them.

pq0ak2nnd 9y ago

I would say for free services, I'm ok with ads (like metafilter)... but for free sites that collect our every click and keystroke and sell it for gobs of money to marketing megacorops, they should be paying us!

shaki-dora 9y ago

I don't know how you can argue against all ads, no exception, without at least somehow addressing the problem of content currently financed by ads. Journalism provides a necessary service for a democracy, and unpaid bloggers haven't actually made much of a dent into real, investigative journalism. Hell, they haven't even made a dent into regular ask-questions-at-press-conferences journalism. Which leaves paywalls. But even if I everyone bought subscriptions to the top 5 or so publications they read regularly, we would all drastically reduce the variety of sources we get our news from. No fan of Breitbart is going to pay for the New York Times, even though now, they might (sometimes accidentally) come across an article offering them a glimpse of real journalism. It's really easy to try: Just for a month or so, don't visit any sites showing advertisement that you haven't paid for.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]