4 ms·
There's a passage of Carl Sagan's "Contact" that's on point and interesting to read 34 years later. The billionaire who helps to decode the Message (from outer
by keithwinstein 7y ago
There's a passage of Carl Sagan's "Contact" that's on point and interesting to read 34 years later. The billionaire who helps to decode the Message (from outer space) and ends up building the working copy of the Machine made his fortune by selling tools to detect and block ads from television.
There is some discussion of the technical cat-and-mouse game he has to play as advertisers try to make their content avoid detection and blend in with the regular programming. In this version of the future, the ad blockers eventually win and network television is destroyed. (The book also features networked computers and email ("telefax"), but the concept of ads appearing on them was still too futuristic for 1985.)
https://books.google.com/books?id=Q6o51-W_z8MC&lpg=PP1&dq=google%20books%20contact&pg=PA223#v=onepage&q=adnix&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=Q6o51-W_z8MC&lpg=PP1&dq=go...
Adnix and Preachnix were the essence of capitalist entrepreneurship, he argued repeatedly. The point of capitalism was supposed to be providing people with alternatives.
"Well, the _absense_ of advertising is an alternative, I told them. There are huge advertising budgets only when there's no difference between the products. If the products really were different, people would buy the one that's better. Advertising teaches people not to trust their judgment. Advertising teaching people to be stupid. A strong country needs smart people. So Adnix is patriotic. The manufacturers can use some of their advertising budgets to improve their products. The consumer will benefit. Magazines and newspapers and direct mail business will boom, and that'll ease the pain in the ad agencies. I don't see what the problem is."
Adnix, much more than the innumerable libel suits against the original commercial networks, led directly to their demise. For a while there was a small army of unemployed advertising executives...
- rocky1138 7y agoI feel that it may go the other way: that receiving communication from a source that is supported by ad revenue while knowingly and actively bypassing those same ads will be seen as theft. I fully expect lobbyists to push for this and see some success in the next 10 years.
- perl4ever 7y agoWhen people refuse to watch ads, there is theft going on, but it's theft from the advertisers by the media owners. The viewers aren't guilty of anything.
- dual_basis 7y agoI don't understand your point. If an ad doesn't display, then the content owner doesn't get any money for it.
- perl4ever 7y agoIf it was always possible to detect whether an ad was seen, wouldn't it always be possible to block ad-blockers?
- dual_basis 7y agoMany sites do. It's clearly always possible to detect whether an ad was seen. Often, the content owners do not bother putting such measures in place, but the advertisers definitely do. (It's even easier from their perspective to check if the ad has been served or not, as many ad blockers prevent the ad from even downloading by sending all requests to that domain into a black hole and so the ad is never even requested from the server.)
- brokenmachine 7y agoPlacing images I have not requested on a display that I own is vandalism. I agree that the lobbyists will win. I wish we had politicians with some moral character though.
- yjftsjthsd-h 7y ago> In this version of the future, the ad blockers eventually win and network television is destroyed. I love utopian visions of the future.