9 ms·

Does anyone else feel disgust towards the world we live in? Everywhere you look, you get adds thrown in your face. Facebook is marketing to your profile, not ju

Does anyone else feel disgust towards the world we live in? Everywhere you look, you get adds thrown in your face. Facebook is marketing to your profile, not just paid adds but people with their business. You meet a new person in a café they tell you about their business and try to sell stuff... You dare to go online with your smartphone and there's a million apps updating and when you open them they throw more adds in your face. can I demand my attention back please?

RhodesianHunter 8y ago
Honestly? No. I suppose I've just developed filters that means I pretty much never notice any of them unless a comment like this draws my attention to it.
keepper 8y ago
Would you put your money where your opinion is? You can demand your attention back, but are you willing to pay for the content you consume? I say this in earnest. We had great content in newspapers and magazines... and the world decide that cheap ( with instance access ) was better. Same has happened to many industries. You shouldn't demand, without a willingness to, well, compensate.
- badsectoracula 8y ago
  > We had great content in newspapers and magazines... and the world decide that cheap ( with instance access ) was better. I do not remember a time that newspapers and magazines had no ads, despite being paid. If anything many of them were almost half ads, half content. I was reading magazines since the 90s though, i do not know if things were better before.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
    My memory agrees. Hell, I work with a gaming magazine preservation project and those things are 90%+ ads when you get down to it.
  - keepper 8y ago
    I think my point is that the "bombardment" of ads is partly in due to the lack of monetization. There's a bit of a difference between print ads, and intrusive online ads. For example, you could turn the page... there was not redirect to "wow iphone user, you've won this prize!!!" I'm actually ok with facebook/ig/google adwords ads. I'm not ok with intrusive, redirecting, in your face, ads. I could be alone in this opinion.
  - rchaud 8y ago
    Those ads are relevant, because they are context-specific and purchased directly from the publisher. If I pick up The Economist, I will expect to see ads for some luxury watch brand, as well as highly specialized job postings for executives somewhere. If I go to the Economists' website, I will see ads for: - a university website I went to that dropped a remarketing cookie into my browser - the shitty dating app full of bots and escorts, that would never have passed a QC review at a publication. Yet they are common on FB and TW (maybe Google Ads is different). - the tshirt website that displays some machine-generated text based on what it thinks my interests are. These are what I consider intrusive ads. When I see one, I don't want to have to think about what trail I left that led to these particular ads being shown to me.
    - ariwilson 8y ago
      This is not even true. I just went to the Economist website and I got exactly the same ads you claim for the print version: - Louis Vuitton watch ad - Accenture strategy ad about company purpose (served by Google DoubleClick)
      - rchaud 8y ago
        Hmm, I just checked again and you are right, I was wrong. Perhaps they changed their digital ads strategy, as the last time I visited on a non-adblocked browser, it was showing those low-grade ads that really cheapened the experience of being on the site.
  - mrep 8y ago
    Maybe not all news, but you can pay for ad-free youtube, hulu, spotify, and arstechnica these days.
  - tzs 8y ago
    With magazines with a narrow focus, such as magazines about a particular hobby or activity, readers usually wanted the ads. I used to regularly read "Astronomy" and "Sky & Telescope", for example, and would have been disappointed if the ads went away. Ads in those magazines were the primary way most amateur astronomers back in, say, the '70s would find good equipment. Other magazines I would have been disappointed to lose ads from were "Popular Electronics", "Chess Life" and "Byte". For more general interest magazines, like "Time" or "Newsweek", I don't recall looking forward to the ads like I did for the above mentioned magazines, so wouldn't have minded if they went away. On the other hand, print ads generally weren't intrusive, though, so if they would have had to raise the price of the magazine to get rid of them I would rather keep them. Although newspapers were general interest, their ads were often useful because they were usually for local things. Remember, back in the day we bought almost everything in person at local stores, so these ads often alerted us to sales and deals that we were interested in.
- mlthoughts2018 8y ago
  I disagree. This is sort of like saying it’s fine to build a restaurant with two large rooms, one that has cigarette smoke piped into it, and one with fresh, clean air. You can sit in the smoke filled room for no additional charge, but you have to sign up for a subscription plan with that restaurant to be allowed in the clean air room. Now imagine that every restaurant does this. And your grocery store, doctor’s office, airplane seat and place of worship too. To escape it, you’d literally have to become an alienating, dysfunctional hermit disavowed of all kinds of modern standards of living, hypervigilant with every place you visit. So it is with ads. Nine times out of ten, there is not even any option you can pay for that is truly ad free. Even full paying subscribers are subjected to ads and have their data and consumption habits tracked to build better ad bidding techniques or demographic profiles. Ads are essentially always a toxic psychological substance, and especially so when their injection into your life is nearly impossible to fully comprehend and relies on personal data about you that is sprawling, with huge companies and teams of engineers designing ways to defeat any expected privacy you might have believed you’re entitled to. Tracking pixels, cookies, browser fingerprinting, data bartering, location tracking SDKs, etc. There’s an aspect of this where we simply need to legislate away hyper-targeted and constant, pervasive advertising, just like we would have a public health outcry if a restaurant tried to create a room artificially filled with cigarette smoke. Ads are truly not different. They are a psychological carcinogen and people should have a natural right to avoid being subjected to them while conducting everyday modern life activities. We should disallow the possibility that the only way to avoid an ad is to avoid the content / pay a rent-seeking additional fee for ad-free access, etc. It’s not acceptable to inject a harmful substance into a product and then argue customers are free to not consume it or pay extra for the harmful substance to be removed. Ads should not be viewed as a logically possible monetization instrument for reasons of sheer public health. If this means many types of businesses fold because they were only sustainable if they monetized the injection of harmful substances into their customers’ lives, then let them fold. It means they do not provide compelling enough products or services to be justified by the marketplace, and are propped up by a philistine ethical abyss in our modern economy that tries to convince people it’s above board to make money from injecting harmful substances into customers’ lives or charging a premium to avoid the harmful substance. We wouldn’t allow businesses to monetize based on injecting cigarette smoke into customers’ lives (not even if the mostly uninformed customers claimed to be OK with it). It’s frankly no different with ads.
- bduerst 8y ago
  Google used to allow you to pay pennies to websites to hide display ads their site, or replace them entirely with cat pictures. It wasn't complete coverage since Google doesn't own all ad networks, but it was something like 55% of the ads on sites. Then they changed the whole program to only have 100% coverage on very specific sites, which kind of makes it useless unless you frequent those specific domains: https://support.google.com/contributor/answer/7324995 https://support.google.com/contributor/answer/7324995
- arendtio 8y ago
  > You can demand your attention back, but are you willing to pay for the content you consume? Yes, I do. In fact, I want to consume a lot less than the media corporations want me to consume (especially 'news'). So paying for Netflix/Spotify/Prime/Steam is no problem for me and I probably would pay for news if I would find it of any value. Today, every news corporation seems to have its own agenda and you have to do your own research anyway. I am just wondering how much I would have to pay to get the other stuff without that DRM garbage... I mean for games we have GOG, but for movies and music, I haven't found a legal DRM-free source yet that offers the main-stream products :-/
- thecatspaw 8y ago
  Yes. I pay 50bucks to a youtuber per video who does not advertise, and disables them wherever possible (sometimes its forced by yt/twitch). Lots of people do not support him on patreon, but he says that the few people who pay make him more money than he would get with ads. I would rather pay those 10$ per month or so that websites get through ads (per user), rather than getting tracked and stalked everywhere I go.
- aszantu 8y ago
  Well, the other side would be: how about stop throwing free stuff at me that I don't need anyways? But since it's already there, sure, I'll consume it? The market tought people to be like this. I never click on adds, and I never buy what's advertized in an add, what's the market value of that? For a while, I tried what everyone else tried: "like and subscribe, like and comment!" but 1. it didn't work and 2. I felt more and more disgusted with myself. 3. I had a friend, who did this, stuck with it and became very weird, always hunting for agreement, couldn't take any feedback at all (unless it was positive and stroking her ego). All this stuff is reshaping human behaviour, and nobody knows what it's doing. 4. All adds are telling you that something is missing and that you need it. Be it software or hardware, creams and food. Essentially the message in a lot of these things is: you're inefficient, ugly, slow, unproductive, uncreative, too thick, too thin... Who wants to listen to that kind of message all the time?
megaman821 8y ago
If ads are the biggest problem you face in the world, you have had a pretty easy life. I wish people had half as much passion as they do against ads, against more impactful things like hunger, disease and war. Also, ads really don't bother me that much. Perhaps, I can afford to pay for everything I consume without ads, but some people don't have the means to. I am glad that ads allow some people to access content freely or provide them cheaper goods. There are actually times ads have helped me find a product I enjoy, I assume for most normal people this is true also. What I find more annoying than ads, is all the self-righteous complaining about ads.
- tibyat 8y ago
  whataboutism
  - rocketpastsix 8y ago
    this isnt any kind of whataboutism.
    - tibyat 8y ago
      you’re kidding right? you think ads are bad?! whatabout hunger, disease, and war?! Yes, they are all bad, and so are ads.
- anthony_romeo 8y ago
  To be fair, I don’t think the original poster ever suggested that ads were the biggest problem they faced in the world. You’re not wrong in some respects, but I think it’s useful to have a dialogue on the subject of increasing (and perhaps invasive) advertising, rather than dismiss it because there are also people starving in the world.
- jaehoony 8y ago
  This is also the person who would flip out if his internet speed goes to shit and Comcast representative said hey, it's not as bad as 10 years ago.
- 8y ago
AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
You can have it back: simply turn off and don't use these things. Will life be less convenient? Yeah, probably, but do you value your convenience more than the negatives? If so, it seems unreasonable of you to make demands.
- trophycase 8y ago
  Kind of true, but it's like using checks because you don't like credit cards, eventually you may just be unable to function in society without it.
morningmoon 8y ago
You don’t have to see any ads online, by using an adblocker and not visiting websites that lack paid ad-free versions (Facebook, Instagram).
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
grumpopotamus 8y ago
Beyond the annoyance of the ads themselves, there is a serious problem of misaligned incentives in the current environment. Online content platforms are incentivized to show me content that will get them the most clicks so that they can get more ad impressions, even if that content leads me down a path of hate, ignorance, or self-destruction.
meruru 8y ago
Take these: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/ublock-origin/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/ublock-origin... http://f-droid.org/ http://f-droid.org/ https://deletefacebook.com/ https://deletefacebook.com/
miguelmota 8y ago
> Does anyone else feel disgust towards the world we live in? How do you reckon someone market their business without promoting it or telling people about it?
dfischer 8y ago
Ads will exist until people start paying for the products they want and have methods of discoverability of their own interests. The last decade or two has really cemented not paying for a product and society not realizing that means they ARE the product.
- baroffoos 8y ago
  Most websites offer no option to remove adverts. I will simply use an adblocker on all my devices. If this means free services go away and I have to pay for them now then that is ok by me.
avinium 8y ago
Actually, I don't mind the ads themselves. What I loathe - to my very core - is most of the social networking ecosystem that's developed to support ad delivery. The constant whinging, outrage, passive-aggressiveness, and superficiality on display via Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and others is deeply disheartening. Pre-social media, the internet wasn't this shrieking cacophony that we have now.
runn1ng 8y ago
It didn't use to be better? In TV, breaking movies by ads is a long-established practice (as is product placement); advertisements defined genres as "soap operas" long before internet was a thing; newspapers and magazines were always covered with ads. Internet used to be different, but not really that much, ads were always there (1-millionth customer is an old internet trope, etc).
katbyte 8y ago
It sucks and i agree its kinda awful but change how you live your life? (if possible of course) I rarely see any ads these days. I don't listen to the radio or watch TV I dns ad block my home network with pihole, my phone with adguard I double down with ublock origin and other privacy plugins on my computers I don't use facebook or instagram all that much I pay the 15$ a month for spotify family and share with 3 friends I don't put up with people trying to sell me things, it's easy to say hey I hate to interrupt you but i'm honestly not interested. sometimes i see a youtube ad while casting and i'm usually genuinely surprised. only when i am on fb or instagram i see ads reliably and when i do they are at the very least relevant to my life, sometimes amusingly scammy, but always easily ignored. the only place ads are ubiquitous are in the real world and while ugly they are easy to ignore. I do wish it was against the law to have large public advertisements, public art would be an immense improvement. Honestly it's come to a point that when I'm at my parents or in a car with a friend who listens to radio i'm fascinated by the ads because its maybe been a decade since i've been exposed to them with any frequency.
bigbluedots 8y ago
I would also like my attention back. However it doesn't look like advertising is going away any time soon, quite the opposite. Too many people are invested in it as a business model, including many in tech.
keyle 8y ago
TV, get 5 ads every 10 minutes Instagram, get an ad every 8 seconds.

RhodesianHunter 8y ago

Honestly? No. I suppose I've just developed filters that means I pretty much never notice any of them unless a comment like this draws my attention to it.

keepper 8y ago

Would you put your money where your opinion is? You can demand your attention back, but are you willing to pay for the content you consume? I say this in earnest. We had great content in newspapers and magazines... and the world decide that cheap ( with instance access ) was better. Same has happened to many industries. You shouldn't demand, without a willingness to, well, compensate.

badsectoracula 8y ago
> We had great content in newspapers and magazines... and the world decide that cheap ( with instance access ) was better. I do not remember a time that newspapers and magazines had no ads, despite being paid. If anything many of them were almost half ads, half content. I was reading magazines since the 90s though, i do not know if things were better before.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
  My memory agrees. Hell, I work with a gaming magazine preservation project and those things are 90%+ ads when you get down to it.
- keepper 8y ago
  I think my point is that the "bombardment" of ads is partly in due to the lack of monetization. There's a bit of a difference between print ads, and intrusive online ads. For example, you could turn the page... there was not redirect to "wow iphone user, you've won this prize!!!" I'm actually ok with facebook/ig/google adwords ads. I'm not ok with intrusive, redirecting, in your face, ads. I could be alone in this opinion.
- rchaud 8y ago
  Those ads are relevant, because they are context-specific and purchased directly from the publisher. If I pick up The Economist, I will expect to see ads for some luxury watch brand, as well as highly specialized job postings for executives somewhere. If I go to the Economists' website, I will see ads for: - a university website I went to that dropped a remarketing cookie into my browser - the shitty dating app full of bots and escorts, that would never have passed a QC review at a publication. Yet they are common on FB and TW (maybe Google Ads is different). - the tshirt website that displays some machine-generated text based on what it thinks my interests are. These are what I consider intrusive ads. When I see one, I don't want to have to think about what trail I left that led to these particular ads being shown to me.
  - ariwilson 8y ago
    This is not even true. I just went to the Economist website and I got exactly the same ads you claim for the print version: - Louis Vuitton watch ad - Accenture strategy ad about company purpose (served by Google DoubleClick)
    - rchaud 8y ago
      Hmm, I just checked again and you are right, I was wrong. Perhaps they changed their digital ads strategy, as the last time I visited on a non-adblocked browser, it was showing those low-grade ads that really cheapened the experience of being on the site.
- mrep 8y ago
  Maybe not all news, but you can pay for ad-free youtube, hulu, spotify, and arstechnica these days.
- tzs 8y ago
  With magazines with a narrow focus, such as magazines about a particular hobby or activity, readers usually wanted the ads. I used to regularly read "Astronomy" and "Sky & Telescope", for example, and would have been disappointed if the ads went away. Ads in those magazines were the primary way most amateur astronomers back in, say, the '70s would find good equipment. Other magazines I would have been disappointed to lose ads from were "Popular Electronics", "Chess Life" and "Byte". For more general interest magazines, like "Time" or "Newsweek", I don't recall looking forward to the ads like I did for the above mentioned magazines, so wouldn't have minded if they went away. On the other hand, print ads generally weren't intrusive, though, so if they would have had to raise the price of the magazine to get rid of them I would rather keep them. Although newspapers were general interest, their ads were often useful because they were usually for local things. Remember, back in the day we bought almost everything in person at local stores, so these ads often alerted us to sales and deals that we were interested in.
mlthoughts2018 8y ago
I disagree. This is sort of like saying it’s fine to build a restaurant with two large rooms, one that has cigarette smoke piped into it, and one with fresh, clean air. You can sit in the smoke filled room for no additional charge, but you have to sign up for a subscription plan with that restaurant to be allowed in the clean air room. Now imagine that every restaurant does this. And your grocery store, doctor’s office, airplane seat and place of worship too. To escape it, you’d literally have to become an alienating, dysfunctional hermit disavowed of all kinds of modern standards of living, hypervigilant with every place you visit. So it is with ads. Nine times out of ten, there is not even any option you can pay for that is truly ad free. Even full paying subscribers are subjected to ads and have their data and consumption habits tracked to build better ad bidding techniques or demographic profiles. Ads are essentially always a toxic psychological substance, and especially so when their injection into your life is nearly impossible to fully comprehend and relies on personal data about you that is sprawling, with huge companies and teams of engineers designing ways to defeat any expected privacy you might have believed you’re entitled to. Tracking pixels, cookies, browser fingerprinting, data bartering, location tracking SDKs, etc. There’s an aspect of this where we simply need to legislate away hyper-targeted and constant, pervasive advertising, just like we would have a public health outcry if a restaurant tried to create a room artificially filled with cigarette smoke. Ads are truly not different. They are a psychological carcinogen and people should have a natural right to avoid being subjected to them while conducting everyday modern life activities. We should disallow the possibility that the only way to avoid an ad is to avoid the content / pay a rent-seeking additional fee for ad-free access, etc. It’s not acceptable to inject a harmful substance into a product and then argue customers are free to not consume it or pay extra for the harmful substance to be removed. Ads should not be viewed as a logically possible monetization instrument for reasons of sheer public health. If this means many types of businesses fold because they were only sustainable if they monetized the injection of harmful substances into their customers’ lives, then let them fold. It means they do not provide compelling enough products or services to be justified by the marketplace, and are propped up by a philistine ethical abyss in our modern economy that tries to convince people it’s above board to make money from injecting harmful substances into customers’ lives or charging a premium to avoid the harmful substance. We wouldn’t allow businesses to monetize based on injecting cigarette smoke into customers’ lives (not even if the mostly uninformed customers claimed to be OK with it). It’s frankly no different with ads.
bduerst 8y ago
Google used to allow you to pay pennies to websites to hide display ads their site, or replace them entirely with cat pictures. It wasn't complete coverage since Google doesn't own all ad networks, but it was something like 55% of the ads on sites. Then they changed the whole program to only have 100% coverage on very specific sites, which kind of makes it useless unless you frequent those specific domains: https://support.google.com/contributor/answer/7324995 https://support.google.com/contributor/answer/7324995
arendtio 8y ago
> You can demand your attention back, but are you willing to pay for the content you consume? Yes, I do. In fact, I want to consume a lot less than the media corporations want me to consume (especially 'news'). So paying for Netflix/Spotify/Prime/Steam is no problem for me and I probably would pay for news if I would find it of any value. Today, every news corporation seems to have its own agenda and you have to do your own research anyway. I am just wondering how much I would have to pay to get the other stuff without that DRM garbage... I mean for games we have GOG, but for movies and music, I haven't found a legal DRM-free source yet that offers the main-stream products :-/
thecatspaw 8y ago
Yes. I pay 50bucks to a youtuber per video who does not advertise, and disables them wherever possible (sometimes its forced by yt/twitch). Lots of people do not support him on patreon, but he says that the few people who pay make him more money than he would get with ads. I would rather pay those 10$ per month or so that websites get through ads (per user), rather than getting tracked and stalked everywhere I go.
aszantu 8y ago
Well, the other side would be: how about stop throwing free stuff at me that I don't need anyways? But since it's already there, sure, I'll consume it? The market tought people to be like this. I never click on adds, and I never buy what's advertized in an add, what's the market value of that? For a while, I tried what everyone else tried: "like and subscribe, like and comment!" but 1. it didn't work and 2. I felt more and more disgusted with myself. 3. I had a friend, who did this, stuck with it and became very weird, always hunting for agreement, couldn't take any feedback at all (unless it was positive and stroking her ego). All this stuff is reshaping human behaviour, and nobody knows what it's doing. 4. All adds are telling you that something is missing and that you need it. Be it software or hardware, creams and food. Essentially the message in a lot of these things is: you're inefficient, ugly, slow, unproductive, uncreative, too thick, too thin... Who wants to listen to that kind of message all the time?

megaman821 8y ago

If ads are the biggest problem you face in the world, you have had a pretty easy life. I wish people had half as much passion as they do against ads, against more impactful things like hunger, disease and war. Also, ads really don't bother me that much. Perhaps, I can afford to pay for everything I consume without ads, but some people don't have the means to. I am glad that ads allow some people to access content freely or provide them cheaper goods. There are actually times ads have helped me find a product I enjoy, I assume for most normal people this is true also. What I find more annoying than ads, is all the self-righteous complaining about ads.

tibyat 8y ago
whataboutism
- rocketpastsix 8y ago
  this isnt any kind of whataboutism.
  - tibyat 8y ago
    you’re kidding right? you think ads are bad?! whatabout hunger, disease, and war?! Yes, they are all bad, and so are ads.
anthony_romeo 8y ago
To be fair, I don’t think the original poster ever suggested that ads were the biggest problem they faced in the world. You’re not wrong in some respects, but I think it’s useful to have a dialogue on the subject of increasing (and perhaps invasive) advertising, rather than dismiss it because there are also people starving in the world.
jaehoony 8y ago
This is also the person who would flip out if his internet speed goes to shit and Comcast representative said hey, it's not as bad as 10 years ago.
8y ago

AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago

You can have it back: simply turn off and don't use these things. Will life be less convenient? Yeah, probably, but do you value your convenience more than the negatives? If so, it seems unreasonable of you to make demands.

trophycase 8y ago
Kind of true, but it's like using checks because you don't like credit cards, eventually you may just be unable to function in society without it.

morningmoon 8y ago

You don’t have to see any ads online, by using an adblocker and not visiting websites that lack paid ad-free versions (Facebook, Instagram).

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

grumpopotamus 8y ago

Beyond the annoyance of the ads themselves, there is a serious problem of misaligned incentives in the current environment. Online content platforms are incentivized to show me content that will get them the most clicks so that they can get more ad impressions, even if that content leads me down a path of hate, ignorance, or self-destruction.

meruru 8y ago

Take these: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/ublock-origin/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/ublock-origin... http://f-droid.org/ http://f-droid.org/ https://deletefacebook.com/ https://deletefacebook.com/

miguelmota 8y ago

> Does anyone else feel disgust towards the world we live in? How do you reckon someone market their business without promoting it or telling people about it?

dfischer 8y ago

Ads will exist until people start paying for the products they want and have methods of discoverability of their own interests. The last decade or two has really cemented not paying for a product and society not realizing that means they ARE the product.

baroffoos 8y ago
Most websites offer no option to remove adverts. I will simply use an adblocker on all my devices. If this means free services go away and I have to pay for them now then that is ok by me.

avinium 8y ago

Actually, I don't mind the ads themselves. What I loathe - to my very core - is most of the social networking ecosystem that's developed to support ad delivery. The constant whinging, outrage, passive-aggressiveness, and superficiality on display via Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and others is deeply disheartening. Pre-social media, the internet wasn't this shrieking cacophony that we have now.

runn1ng 8y ago

It didn't use to be better? In TV, breaking movies by ads is a long-established practice (as is product placement); advertisements defined genres as "soap operas" long before internet was a thing; newspapers and magazines were always covered with ads. Internet used to be different, but not really that much, ads were always there (1-millionth customer is an old internet trope, etc).

katbyte 8y ago

It sucks and i agree its kinda awful but change how you live your life? (if possible of course) I rarely see any ads these days. I don't listen to the radio or watch TV I dns ad block my home network with pihole, my phone with adguard I double down with ublock origin and other privacy plugins on my computers I don't use facebook or instagram all that much I pay the 15$ a month for spotify family and share with 3 friends I don't put up with people trying to sell me things, it's easy to say hey I hate to interrupt you but i'm honestly not interested. sometimes i see a youtube ad while casting and i'm usually genuinely surprised. only when i am on fb or instagram i see ads reliably and when i do they are at the very least relevant to my life, sometimes amusingly scammy, but always easily ignored. the only place ads are ubiquitous are in the real world and while ugly they are easy to ignore. I do wish it was against the law to have large public advertisements, public art would be an immense improvement. Honestly it's come to a point that when I'm at my parents or in a car with a friend who listens to radio i'm fascinated by the ads because its maybe been a decade since i've been exposed to them with any frequency.

bigbluedots 8y ago

I would also like my attention back. However it doesn't look like advertising is going away any time soon, quite the opposite. Too many people are invested in it as a business model, including many in tech.

keyle 8y ago

TV, get 5 ads every 10 minutes Instagram, get an ad every 8 seconds.