25 ms·

That‘s so absurd though. It went from „hey let‘s put a banner in this popular place, so people will know us“ to „let‘s police this place so people will only ass

by Joe-Z 8y ago

That‘s so absurd though. It went from „hey let‘s put a banner in this popular place, so people will know us“ to „let‘s police this place so people will only associate us with nice things“ This whole ad-based internet needs to die.

hombre_fatal 8y ago
I just hope it coincides with a cultural shift of people realizing they need to pay for things and that ads only made everything seem free.
- tomc1985 8y ago
  Of people who stole a culture of freedom and openness and replaced it with... this
- Kaiyou 8y ago
  The lack of a convenient way of anonymously paying is probably the root cause of that. There's cash, which is a pretty convenient way of anonymously paying. There's no such convenient way to pay for stuff on the Internet. Emphasis on convenient.
sonnyblarney 8y ago
It's not absurd, it's really the opposite - it's common sense. Ads are an important means for companies to get the word out for stuff you might want and they're in more places than the internet. The industry suffers from inefficiencies, surely, but it's still net beneficial. Someday we might have fewer ads, and better ads that we really want to see. If you ever get into a position where you have a company, and you run ads, and you see how it affects your business, you might have a different view. For example, I'm helping with a small new business making a very cool niche product - they'd be dead without FB ads because only FB offers the kind of targeting necessary (just basic demographics really). None of us are big fans of FB but the business would not exist without them. Businesses that have more scale and bigger budgets can hit demos a little easier, but there's only two real games in town for many businesses: G and FB. And of course, we would never, ever advertise near porn, not for a second. In fact - if we felt that 'Tumblr' became well known or synonymous with porn, we wouldn't advertise there. As far as G, well, they have porn, but for whatever reason, it doesn't seem to affect their brand.
- Dylan16807 8y ago
  > And of course, we would never, ever advertise near porn, not for a second. In fact - if we felt that 'Tumblr' became well known or synonymous with porn, we wouldn't advertise there. As far as G, well, they have porn, but for whatever reason, it doesn't seem to affect their brand. I don't understand how the first and last sentence are compatible, unless you're saying that you'd never advertise near a brand known for porn, and don't care otherwise? That's not a very principled stance, and it really does seem wastefully harmful to a lot of sites.
  - sonnyblarney 8y ago
    Having your ads next to porn, is very different than having your ads inside a technology that may show porn. For example, advertisers do not want their ads shown before a youtube clip if it contains porn. Google is not seen as a 'porn brand' because ostensibly they are just technology - they help you find stuff. Tumblr had a problem in that a considerable portion of their content was porn. If it happens that Google develops this popular attribution, i.e. they are known as a 'porn brand' - then people would advertise there, but I don't think this will ever be the case. FYI - Google also has some content controls, they don't have ads for porn, they don't promote it etc. Again, this is very easy social math. The 'proof' is not in any of my statements, rather, it's the consistent application by basically every ad agency: they don't want their ads with porn. But they're ok with their ads on a site that may happen to show it if there isn't a branding concern and there obviously is not with Google.
- Joe-Z 8y ago
  I realize that advertising provides actual value. It just seems that it became too much. It went from something that should be an add-on to the main income source for some of the biggest companies in the world. That‘s way too much power in the hands of advertising companies. That‘s why I said the „I build something neat that people wanna use and when I have enough users I exploit the shit out of them“ aka ad-based business model needs to die.
- Asooka 8y ago
  Soviet Communism also sounded pretty fun on paper but it turned out that Serfdom 2.0 (we'll own everything and take good care of you, promise!) was pretty shitty all-around. Putting a banner on some popular place is ok, but it devolved in the current mess due to market forces and I'm not really sure we can fix advertising with enough regulation.

by Joe-Z 8y ago

hombre_fatal 8y ago

I just hope it coincides with a cultural shift of people realizing they need to pay for things and that ads only made everything seem free.

tomc1985 8y ago
Of people who stole a culture of freedom and openness and replaced it with... this
Kaiyou 8y ago
The lack of a convenient way of anonymously paying is probably the root cause of that. There's cash, which is a pretty convenient way of anonymously paying. There's no such convenient way to pay for stuff on the Internet. Emphasis on convenient.

sonnyblarney 8y ago

It's not absurd, it's really the opposite - it's common sense. Ads are an important means for companies to get the word out for stuff you might want and they're in more places than the internet. The industry suffers from inefficiencies, surely, but it's still net beneficial. Someday we might have fewer ads, and better ads that we really want to see. If you ever get into a position where you have a company, and you run ads, and you see how it affects your business, you might have a different view. For example, I'm helping with a small new business making a very cool niche product - they'd be dead without FB ads because only FB offers the kind of targeting necessary (just basic demographics really). None of us are big fans of FB but the business would not exist without them. Businesses that have more scale and bigger budgets can hit demos a little easier, but there's only two real games in town for many businesses: G and FB. And of course, we would never, ever advertise near porn, not for a second. In fact - if we felt that 'Tumblr' became well known or synonymous with porn, we wouldn't advertise there. As far as G, well, they have porn, but for whatever reason, it doesn't seem to affect their brand.

Dylan16807 8y ago
> And of course, we would never, ever advertise near porn, not for a second. In fact - if we felt that 'Tumblr' became well known or synonymous with porn, we wouldn't advertise there. As far as G, well, they have porn, but for whatever reason, it doesn't seem to affect their brand. I don't understand how the first and last sentence are compatible, unless you're saying that you'd never advertise near a brand known for porn, and don't care otherwise? That's not a very principled stance, and it really does seem wastefully harmful to a lot of sites.
- sonnyblarney 8y ago
  Having your ads next to porn, is very different than having your ads inside a technology that may show porn. For example, advertisers do not want their ads shown before a youtube clip if it contains porn. Google is not seen as a 'porn brand' because ostensibly they are just technology - they help you find stuff. Tumblr had a problem in that a considerable portion of their content was porn. If it happens that Google develops this popular attribution, i.e. they are known as a 'porn brand' - then people would advertise there, but I don't think this will ever be the case. FYI - Google also has some content controls, they don't have ads for porn, they don't promote it etc. Again, this is very easy social math. The 'proof' is not in any of my statements, rather, it's the consistent application by basically every ad agency: they don't want their ads with porn. But they're ok with their ads on a site that may happen to show it if there isn't a branding concern and there obviously is not with Google.
Joe-Z 8y ago
I realize that advertising provides actual value. It just seems that it became too much. It went from something that should be an add-on to the main income source for some of the biggest companies in the world. That‘s way too much power in the hands of advertising companies. That‘s why I said the „I build something neat that people wanna use and when I have enough users I exploit the shit out of them“ aka ad-based business model needs to die.
Asooka 8y ago
Soviet Communism also sounded pretty fun on paper but it turned out that Serfdom 2.0 (we'll own everything and take good care of you, promise!) was pretty shitty all-around. Putting a banner on some popular place is ok, but it devolved in the current mess due to market forces and I'm not really sure we can fix advertising with enough regulation.