4 ms·

Might I suggest you watch some videos by the late great comedian Bill Hicks

phone8675309 6y ago
If only society treated advertising like it treats pornography - require people viewing it to be 18, require that they opt in to it, and allow them to block it voluntarily without stigma. This message brought to you by Subway: Eat Fresh.
- manigandham 6y ago
  If only society valued paying for most of the content they consume. Reality is the money has to come from somewhere.
  - wombatpm 6y ago
    Society did. Publishing bought into the whole ad network model and shot themselves in the foot thinking they can sell an ad for each view.
    - manigandham 6y ago
      Why can't they sell an ad for each view? They've been doing it just fine.
  - liability 6y ago
    Ads OR payment? Cute theory. Here's the reality: if I pay for a subscription to the NYtimes, I still get ads. If I pay for CNN, I still get ads. If I pay for a movie ticket, I get ads and probably product placement as well (just another form of ad.) So fuck that argument.
    - manigandham 6y ago
      Either the payments aren't enough to cover everything or the service wants to make more. Anyways, the only "theory" is that costs need to be paid, and you can't have no ads and no payments and expect that to work.
      - liability 6y ago
        How much money do I have to give the NYTimes before they give me a newpaper without ads? The answer seems to be that it's not something they're selling. I don't think they ever have, and I don't really expect they ever will. Hence ad blockers, without a shred of remorse.
        manigandham 6y ago
        If they don't provide it then you can opt to just not read it. Not paying and not viewing ads is clearly expecting free content, the very same expectation that pushed so many ads online in the first place.
        liability 6y ago
        Or I can use an adblocker and give such businesses the finger. I will continue to do this. If they don't like it, the ball is in their court. Let them try to stop me, ruining their site in the process for anybody who pays for a subscription while blocking their ads, or offer an ad-free service to people who pay. Either way, using an adblocker is a clear win for me and nobody can provide me with a compelling reason to stop. Whining about how I'm being unfair to the poor w'ittle corporation isn't persuasive. It was never my intention to follow the rules of the game they want me to play.
        phone8675309 6y ago
        This is what I do - if you won't give me an ad free version then I'm not interested. My local newspaper is dying and I don't feel sorry for them.
    - floatboth 6y ago
      I pay for YouTube Premium and don't get ads. Other than sponsorships in the videos, but they're not nearly as annoying as external ads. Oh and some channels cross-post their videos to a paid platform called Nebula – there you can often find non-sponsored versions even.
      - jiggawatts 6y ago
        "But first, a word from our sponsor!" is now the lead-in to more than half of the content I've consumed from YouTube in the last year. Why exactly am I paying Google for again? Remind me: Is it so that I don't see ads, or so that the artists are properly compensated? I'm asking because my bank account is lighter, Google has made records profits, but neither of the two outcomes above has occurred...
        manigandham 6y ago
        It's user generated content. What is Google supposed to do about sponsors in videos? Technically the Youtube subscription is for the platform itself and extra features, and a little bit of the money is shared with creators in return for removing the ads. They actually make less with Youtube premium users, and if you paid them the same as their ad revenue then your total subscription would be much higher.
        jiggawatts 6y ago
        Not give a slice of the paid subscription pie to videos containing ads.
        manigandham 6y ago
        That's not currently possible. They can barely keep up with moderation, even with all the automation.
  - phone8675309 6y ago
    "Content costs money to make so companies need money to make it" is a true statement. "Companies therefore must run advertisements to make content because a significant portion of the target audience does not want to pay for it" does not follow from that. There are many industries that typically do not run advertisements for their content - book publishing comes to mind here - and they seem to get by just fine. 90% of everything is crap, so 90% of entertainment disappearing because production houses and producers stop whoring themselves out to Madison Ave and big brands is a net positive for society. Make the 10% of things you can get funded by the target audience without having to mentally and emotionally manipulate them (which is what advertising is) and you'll still have too much content for the average person to consume. Advertising is immoral, and advertising to children is both immoral and explicitly evil.
    - manigandham 6y ago
      > "significant portion of the target audience does not want to pay for it" This is true for most online content. For various reasons, content that's not music or video has an assumption of being free. Book publishing is not comparable. > "90% of everything is crap" Maybe, but everyone has a different 90% so there's no "average". Content is made to match demand and there's something for everyone. > "mentally and emotionally manipulate them ... Advertising is immoral" Everything is manipulation and influence. Recommending something to your friends is a form of advertising (and even officially called "word of mouth marketing"). I agree that advertising should have better safeguards since it's influence for a price, but calling it immoral gets into some strange philosophical territory that doesn't accomplish anything productive.

If only society treated advertising like it treats pornography - require people viewing it to be 18, require that they opt in to it, and allow them to block it voluntarily without stigma. This message brought to you by Subway: Eat Fresh.

manigandham 6y ago
If only society valued paying for most of the content they consume. Reality is the money has to come from somewhere.
- wombatpm 6y ago
  Society did. Publishing bought into the whole ad network model and shot themselves in the foot thinking they can sell an ad for each view.
  - manigandham 6y ago
    Why can't they sell an ad for each view? They've been doing it just fine.
- liability 6y ago
  Ads OR payment? Cute theory. Here's the reality: if I pay for a subscription to the NYtimes, I still get ads. If I pay for CNN, I still get ads. If I pay for a movie ticket, I get ads and probably product placement as well (just another form of ad.) So fuck that argument.
  - manigandham 6y ago
    Either the payments aren't enough to cover everything or the service wants to make more. Anyways, the only "theory" is that costs need to be paid, and you can't have no ads and no payments and expect that to work.
    - liability 6y ago
      How much money do I have to give the NYTimes before they give me a newpaper without ads? The answer seems to be that it's not something they're selling. I don't think they ever have, and I don't really expect they ever will. Hence ad blockers, without a shred of remorse.
      - manigandham 6y ago
        If they don't provide it then you can opt to just not read it. Not paying and not viewing ads is clearly expecting free content, the very same expectation that pushed so many ads online in the first place.
        liability 6y ago
        Or I can use an adblocker and give such businesses the finger. I will continue to do this. If they don't like it, the ball is in their court. Let them try to stop me, ruining their site in the process for anybody who pays for a subscription while blocking their ads, or offer an ad-free service to people who pay. Either way, using an adblocker is a clear win for me and nobody can provide me with a compelling reason to stop. Whining about how I'm being unfair to the poor w'ittle corporation isn't persuasive. It was never my intention to follow the rules of the game they want me to play.
        phone8675309 6y ago
        This is what I do - if you won't give me an ad free version then I'm not interested. My local newspaper is dying and I don't feel sorry for them.
  - floatboth 6y ago
    I pay for YouTube Premium and don't get ads. Other than sponsorships in the videos, but they're not nearly as annoying as external ads. Oh and some channels cross-post their videos to a paid platform called Nebula – there you can often find non-sponsored versions even.
    - jiggawatts 6y ago
      "But first, a word from our sponsor!" is now the lead-in to more than half of the content I've consumed from YouTube in the last year. Why exactly am I paying Google for again? Remind me: Is it so that I don't see ads, or so that the artists are properly compensated? I'm asking because my bank account is lighter, Google has made records profits, but neither of the two outcomes above has occurred...
      - manigandham 6y ago
        It's user generated content. What is Google supposed to do about sponsors in videos? Technically the Youtube subscription is for the platform itself and extra features, and a little bit of the money is shared with creators in return for removing the ads. They actually make less with Youtube premium users, and if you paid them the same as their ad revenue then your total subscription would be much higher.
        jiggawatts 6y ago
        Not give a slice of the paid subscription pie to videos containing ads.
        manigandham 6y ago
        That's not currently possible. They can barely keep up with moderation, even with all the automation.
- phone8675309 6y ago
  "Content costs money to make so companies need money to make it" is a true statement. "Companies therefore must run advertisements to make content because a significant portion of the target audience does not want to pay for it" does not follow from that. There are many industries that typically do not run advertisements for their content - book publishing comes to mind here - and they seem to get by just fine. 90% of everything is crap, so 90% of entertainment disappearing because production houses and producers stop whoring themselves out to Madison Ave and big brands is a net positive for society. Make the 10% of things you can get funded by the target audience without having to mentally and emotionally manipulate them (which is what advertising is) and you'll still have too much content for the average person to consume. Advertising is immoral, and advertising to children is both immoral and explicitly evil.
  - manigandham 6y ago
    > "significant portion of the target audience does not want to pay for it" This is true for most online content. For various reasons, content that's not music or video has an assumption of being free. Book publishing is not comparable. > "90% of everything is crap" Maybe, but everyone has a different 90% so there's no "average". Content is made to match demand and there's something for everyone. > "mentally and emotionally manipulate them ... Advertising is immoral" Everything is manipulation and influence. Recommending something to your friends is a form of advertising (and even officially called "word of mouth marketing"). I agree that advertising should have better safeguards since it's influence for a price, but calling it immoral gets into some strange philosophical territory that doesn't accomplish anything productive.