9 ms·

Ads are an attack on our attention. When I go to a website, I decide to direct my attention to this website, because I believe it will offer something of inter

Ads are an attack on our attention. When I go to a website, I decide to direct my attention to this website, because I believe it will offer something of interest to me. Obviously things don't come for free, somebody has to pay for it, but the issue is that as a user, I didn't agree to getting my attention diverted. The trade isn't done upfront and by the time I see the ad, it's already too late. There is also a collective argument to me made about humanity browsing like headless chickens and not being able to focus on important things because of all these distractions.

dash2 5y ago
Use the back button and don't go there again. Website owners need to make a living, they have a right to try to do so the way they see best, and not all consumers share your preferences.
- ratww 5y ago
  Using the back button is not enough. Even using your method, the website will transmit information about me to several ad networks without my consent about retargeting, about which sites I'm visiting, which sites I visited before (via referrer header) and will fingerprint me. Even with their (mostly non-compliant) GDPR cookie banners, information is still transmitted. As far as I'm concerned, no website owner has ever given me a choice of "just using the back button". Only ad-blocking is enough to stop this from happening.
  - pabs3 5y ago
    Your browser is the entity transmitting information to ad networks, your browser is obeying instructions from the website instead of obeying your instructions.
    - fsflover 5y ago
      Which happens because you run non-free JS code: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/javascript-trap.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/javascript-trap.html
      - johannes1234321 5y ago
        Whether the code is free or not is irrelevant for that.
        fsflover 5y ago
        Any examples of free JS doing that?
        tnzm 5y ago
        Is there any other kind of code which can be ascertained to obey its user?
        johannes1234321 5y ago
        The question is who audits it etc. This will become more funny with We assembly. There review isnahrder and even if it is free software it will be ages to verify the code the server delivers matches the source. There is a fundamental control issue where a license debate is irrelevant detour. (For me this is the biggest flaw in the FSF - they haven't grasped that yet, while smart ideas would be needed)
        fsflover 5y ago
        > The question is who audits it etc. The question is whether it is auditable and improvable. This is what free software is for.
        tnzm 5y ago
        Provided a malicious host could take measures to serve the auditors a binary that matches the source, and something entirely different for everyone else, I know of no good way to confirm that a remotely served binary corresponds to the published source. That's why the FSF takes a stand against what it calls "software as a service substitute". Technically, they are correct, for the reason stated above. An Internet that is pure protocol, with clients for remote services being local apps, is not difficult to imagine; in fact, that's how it started and that's how it still works. What's different is the friction of running an embedded blob from a webpage is negligible compared to installing a package on your OS, therefore the "distribution" phase of the software lifecycle is effectively factored out, making the opportunity for user choice minimal. (Unless you run NoScript or LibreJS by default, which I support.) Economically, SaaS is the path of least resistance. You deliver your product through the same platform that people use to browse cat pics, and it works invisibly enough that users never question whether it's doing the right thing. This creates ample opportunity for externalities to be dumped onto the end user, as we observe with the nascent privacy crisis. Perhaps such an externality is of a sufficiently complex or speculative nature that users may not be able to identify it, or willing to care. But that doesn't mean it's ruled out; at least in theory, integrating with the existing legal system by way of distributing your code under a Libre license seems like a good way to nip possible shenanigans in the bud. (As far as your code is concerned, of course - as opposed to everyone else's non-free code out there.) Of course, everyone is free to do what they think best, but it's good to have the FSF's radical evangelism as a point of reference - it's quite possible to do meaningful computing in this way, although maybe not as part of an organization that ignores the ethical underpinnings of its methods! (And that's what computers do best nowadays: algowashing.) Sadly, I find the FSF's approach to the Web somewhat misplaced - for software that is neither locally deployed, nor accessed as an opaque service, but remotely delivered on-demand, focus should be on the delivery chain being auditable, and source maps being available, in the case of WASM and minified JS. Instead, we get LibreJS, which is, as far as I can see, a license-based whitelist - regardless of the fact that non-minified JS is open-source by definition and never compiled to a binary form. The GPL doesn't make a whole lot of sense for embedded scripts, powerful as they are. It would be more relevant for WebAssembly, that's for sure.
- sildur 5y ago
  I also have a right to handle their HTML the way I see fit, for instance by blocking their ads. If they don't like it, they should make their website private.
  - paulcole 5y ago
    > I also have a right to handle their HTML the way I see fit I see this more as you technically having the ability to do this, but what makes it your “right”?
    - LocalPCGuy 5y ago
      Not the OP, but I have the right to control what code is delivered to (downloaded) and run on my computer. That doesn't mean I have the right to use a website that decides they aren't good with me doing so without the ads or other portions I may block. I don't believe I have any moral obligation to make that choice myself. Simply put, I have the right to block ads, and the website has the right to block usage to me if I don't load said ads, trackers, etc.
      - paulcole 5y ago
        > Simply put, I have the right to block ads Let’s assume I agree that you have been tricked into following a link that is infested with terrible ads and that I agree you have the right to block those ads. Isn’t it then your obligation to never visit that site again? You understand that ads are how the website has chosen to make money. You don’t like how they have chosen to make money so you simply never visit the website again, right? It’s like if you found out a restaurant didn’t accept cash and still kept going to eat there when you only had a credit card, knowing in advance you can’t and won’t pay.
        sildur 5y ago
        > Isn’t it then your obligation to never visit that site again? Not really. As long as your site is public, I can enter. If you don't want that, make it private, or subscription only. > It’s like if you found out a restaurant didn’t accept cash and still kept going to eat there when you only had a credit card, knowing in advance you can’t and won’t pay. It's more like going to a public museum that accepts donations and not making a donation. The place is public, and I decide if I pay or not.
- ddevault 5y ago
  No one has a right to a viable business model. If it makes a negative impact on society, we can and should regulate it. Ads are a pox on this Earth.
topicseed 5y ago
Would you say the same about free TV's ads coming mid-program? Or newspapers you actually buy that still contain ads? How would such a trade be done upfront in your opinion? In a way, you are the one coming to PLATFORM (site, newspaper, TV program), so don't come back maybe, but don't tell PLATFORM whether they can out a distracting vase at the entrance, or ads on the sidebar, or a distracting ticker at the bottom of the screen.
- deallocator 5y ago
  I think the correct analogy would be that there's a corner in the screen where advertisement is playing constantly while whatever show you're watching runs. Obviously the advertisement is going to distract you from time to time, and you won't have your full attention on the show.
  - laurowyn 5y ago
    Is forcibly breaking away from the content you want to watch every 10 minutes to show ads not distracting? or the 2 minutes of repeated content from before the break to remind you what was happening before you got distracted by the ads not also distracting? Have you ever watched a show with the ads removed and seen how much of it is actually repeated just because of ad placements? Just because it's not on screen the entire time doesn't mean it isn't a distraction. TV ad breaks are one of the best methods for producers - guaranteed impressions, broad audiences, official metrics, etc. - whilst also being the worst for consumers. An hour of my time set aside for watching something I enjoy now contains 20 minutes of content I don't care about at all, and cannot skip/bypass if not interested, and the 40 minutes of content is closer to 30 because of repeated content either side of ad breaks.
    - sokoloff 5y ago
      That is a huge part of why TiVo was so transformative when it came out. “We’ll be back in...<skip, skip, skip, skip>...and we’re back.”
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
sillysaurusx 5y ago
They don't have to be. Let me do some advertising right now. Daniel Naroditsky's twitch stream is amazing. Go watch 'em https://www.twitch.tv/gmnaroditsky https://www.twitch.tv/gmnaroditsky (If you're into chess, you almost certainly already know about him.) He also gets into feuds with Hikaru and won't shut up about him for some reason nowadays, and is constantly on a soapbox, but whatever. The chess is fun to watch. Now, if you saw a banner ad for that on lichess, would you really feel awful about it? I mean, that's a fine perspective, but I'm of the opinion of "just shovel all the content in front of me and let me pick out what I like." It works wonderfully on YouTube's recommendation algorithm. But of course, your feelings are justified for modern ads as currently implemented. Mobile games are just a complete horror fest now. (It was delightful to discover Cardinal Quest 2, since every aspect of the game can be played without paying a cent or seeing an ad. It's more or less "chess, but with monsters.")
- bscphil 5y ago
  > Now, if you saw a banner ad for that on lichess, would you really feel awful about it? Frankly, yes. Lichess is such a relief because I know it's a place I can go without someone trying to sell me something.
  - sillysaurusx 5y ago
    Fair!
  - amadvance 5y ago
    Did you donated to it ? Because this is possible only with donations. I did, but if at some point they will have to add some ad, I won't consider that awful if done in the right way.
    - paxys 5y ago
      > I did, but if at some point they will have to add some ad Why? Plenty of sites are able to survive solely on a donation model, even large ones. Look at Wikipedia.
- 5y ago
Stratoscope 5y ago
> Ads are an attack on our attention. That may well be true, but let me tell you a story. I recently got into binge watching some old TV shows I enjoyed as a kid, like What's My Line and a few others. But most of the YouTube copies have the commercials stripped out! The few videos that have the old commercials are a blast. The Remington Rand Univac Electronic Brain. The Remington Rand Shaver! And as we all know, 9 out of 10 doctors recommend Camels. Flintstones fan? How about Fred and Barney sneaking out back to smoke some Winstons while Wilma and Betty mow the lawn. I wonder which of today's web ads will achieve the cultural significance of these old classics?
- zorked 5y ago
  Sorry but those commercials have no cultural significance. It's just stuff you remember.
  - Stratoscope 5y ago
    You are right, of course. But isn't "cultural significance" just another way of saying "stuff people remember?"
    - auxym 5y ago
      A literature teacher of mine would say, "culture is what you remember after you've forgotten everything about my class".
  - catlifeonmars 5y ago
    What exactly is cultural significance?
- vishnugupta 5y ago
  I too look back at old ads with fondness and reminisce about the simple times of late 80s and early 90s. However when I recollect how I felt at that time about those ads it's no different from today. The fondness that I associate with those ads are because they are a window to a world that was simpler and in someways beautiful. Do I miss those times? Somewhat. Do I want those days back? Probably not, because for me (and my generation) the progress has been stupendous.
tayo42 5y ago
Those few good years after pop up ads were eliminated by pop up blockers and ad blockers was so nice. Then the war on ad block began and internet is worse then it used to be. Auto play videos in a modal that can't be closed that start with a video on. Wtf
- cletus 5y ago
  It's pretty much mandatory to have (yet another) addon to disable autoplaying videos, sadly. I think I hate this more than ads, honestly (not all autoplaying videos are ads).
  - smichel17 5y ago
    Firefox lets you do this without need for an addon. Stop using an ad company's browser if you don't want to see ads; there is a huge conflict of interest.
    - pessimizer 5y ago
      Google also almost entirely finances firefox development.
      - gordian-mind 5y ago
        Does this mean Firefox is controlled opposition? }:)
  - grishka 5y ago
    Thankfully all news websites serve their videos from a separate domain, so you only have to block that in your ad blocker. Or, just disable JavaScript and hope that won't break images because loading images with JavaScript is apparently also the hot new thing to do.
- alpaca128 5y ago
  Popups and ads can still be blocked very effectively. Since I downloaded a comprehensive hosts file blacklist and filled all checkboxes in uBlock Origin's settings it's extremely rare something slips through, and if it does I can just interactively add a rule for it with a few clicks.
roenxi 5y ago
That is like saying the taste of good food is an attack on our reward system. Attention works that way because it is often helpful. On a normal day advertising is pretty useless. When the world is changing it is a very effective way to find that out. It is part of the system that drives rapid improvement.
- Chris2048 5y ago
  The sugar and salt added to food is an attack on our reward system - but that doesn't make it good food. The fact is that human biological impulse does not line up with rational objectives. People wouldn't need to be subjected to ads if it was desirable - they'd ask for them, much like those "shopping channels" you can choose to watch.
  - roenxi 5y ago
    As a general comment - human biological impulses do generally line up with rational objectives. That is why we have them. Normally they line up with ideas that are so good it makes sense to embed them in how we live. > People wouldn't need to be subjected to ads if it was desirable Substantial value from ads is they communicate (1) what people didn't yet know existed and (2) what everyone else knows (because they saw the ad too). Ads work by and large because people want the products that the ads are selling. A lot of ads are stupid and I'd personally rather not see them - but if I think that, they also probably aren't targeted at me.
    - Chris2048 5y ago
      > That is why we have them evolutionary objectives are not rational. Nor are they particularly up-to-date, especially sugar cravings. Addictions, vices and impulses of many kinds are not at all rational, and it is a virtue to have the willpower to resist them. > (1) what people didn't yet know existed This is far from the only objective, and the substance of many ads demonstrates this: why do brands like coca-cola pay top-dollar for superbowl ad time? You would think they are well known enough.. > (2) what everyone else knows Ads are not knowledge, it is common cultural reference for the purpose of advertisement. I don't see the value in this if you are not an advertiser. > Ads work by and large because people want the products that the ads are selling If we follow the same logic, no one would object to ad blockers, b/c the people who want to see ads wouldn't use them.
vasco 5y ago
When you open the window do you feel the roads, houses or buildings you see are an attack on your attention? That your own house is an attack on the attention of others? That people would rather just see the raw nature that was there before?
- ulimn 5y ago
  Yes, I do sometimes.
  - Hoasi 5y ago
    Absolutely. Modern architecture, coupled with politicians and developers’s greed and the lack of urban planners care, can be an attack on our intelligence, our senses and our basic human aesthetic needs. It’s not just about capturing our attention.
- jedimastert 5y ago
  I don't, but I don't think it's as uncommon a view as you seem to make it out to be.
- paxys 5y ago
  No but a street full of posters and billboards definitely is.
jedimastert 5y ago
Everything is an "attack" on our attention. It's not a very useful distinction. I clicked the link because the title caught my attention. I come to this website because it has a rotation of good content, all of which is more likely than not to catch and hold my attention, keeping it from something else. I also don't generally agree that all ads are bad, which may put me in the minority
- GavinMcG 5y ago
  Even accepting that everything counts as an attack, there can't be an ad attacking your attention when it doesn't exist on the page in the first place.
  - jedimastert 5y ago
    I put "attack" in scare-quotes for a reason. I don't see any of these things as an "attack". If I did, I wouldn't do them.
    - GavinMcG 5y ago
      Well then you're not really engaging with the parent comment. The author said they "decide to direct my attention to this website" and used "attack" because they "didn't agree to getting my attention diverted." The useful distinction is between the content you came to the website to direct your attention toward, and things that tear your attention away.
  - ApolloFortyNine 5y ago
    >there can't be an ad attacking your attention when it doesn't exist on the page in the first place. We can even go one step further and say there can't be an ad attacking your attention when the page itself doesn't exist at all. The bulk of the internet wouldn't exist if not for ads. Things like youtube almost certainly could not exist, with how expensive it is to store data, provide bandwidth, develop the site itself. It's only thanks to ads that the internet is where it is today.
paulcole 5y ago
> Ads are an attack on our attention. He said after celebrating 10 years posting on a site that’s an ad for a VC fund...
silicon2401 5y ago
This is a pretty extreme and entitled position. You're the one assuming that the website will offer you something of interest without any reason to do so, and that you should receive it however you want (without ads). If anything it's more reasonable to assume that you'll see ads on every page you go to. I take the complete opposite position: if I take the effort to make a website, I'll do what I want with it. Maybe I consider your visit an attack on my bandwidth, and I compensate with ads. If you don't like it, you're free to not visit it. Unless I told you in advance that you're not going to see ads, there's no basis for assuming that there won't be ads just like there's no basis for assuming you won't see NSFW content on a random website, religious content, political content, etc
- Chris2048 5y ago
  > You're the one assuming that the website will offer you something of interest without any reason to do so Says who? Arguing against ads isn't arguing against compensation. You're assuming what is being assumed.
  - silicon2401 5y ago
    Says the comment I replied to > When I go to a website, I decide to direct my attention to this website, because I believe it will offer something of interest to me.
    - Chris2048 5y ago
      That quote doesn't contradict what I said, since it says nothing about "without any reason to do so". You are specifically talking about compensation, which that quote does not.
      - silicon2401 5y ago
        You must be pulling my leg, you're not even addressing what I've been commenting

dash2 5y ago

Use the back button and don't go there again. Website owners need to make a living, they have a right to try to do so the way they see best, and not all consumers share your preferences.

ratww 5y ago
Using the back button is not enough. Even using your method, the website will transmit information about me to several ad networks without my consent about retargeting, about which sites I'm visiting, which sites I visited before (via referrer header) and will fingerprint me. Even with their (mostly non-compliant) GDPR cookie banners, information is still transmitted. As far as I'm concerned, no website owner has ever given me a choice of "just using the back button". Only ad-blocking is enough to stop this from happening.
- pabs3 5y ago
  Your browser is the entity transmitting information to ad networks, your browser is obeying instructions from the website instead of obeying your instructions.
  - fsflover 5y ago
    Which happens because you run non-free JS code: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/javascript-trap.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/javascript-trap.html
    - johannes1234321 5y ago
      Whether the code is free or not is irrelevant for that.
      - fsflover 5y ago
        Any examples of free JS doing that?
      - tnzm 5y ago
        Is there any other kind of code which can be ascertained to obey its user?
        johannes1234321 5y ago
        The question is who audits it etc. This will become more funny with We assembly. There review isnahrder and even if it is free software it will be ages to verify the code the server delivers matches the source. There is a fundamental control issue where a license debate is irrelevant detour. (For me this is the biggest flaw in the FSF - they haven't grasped that yet, while smart ideas would be needed)
        fsflover 5y ago
        > The question is who audits it etc. The question is whether it is auditable and improvable. This is what free software is for.
        tnzm 5y ago
        Provided a malicious host could take measures to serve the auditors a binary that matches the source, and something entirely different for everyone else, I know of no good way to confirm that a remotely served binary corresponds to the published source. That's why the FSF takes a stand against what it calls "software as a service substitute". Technically, they are correct, for the reason stated above. An Internet that is pure protocol, with clients for remote services being local apps, is not difficult to imagine; in fact, that's how it started and that's how it still works. What's different is the friction of running an embedded blob from a webpage is negligible compared to installing a package on your OS, therefore the "distribution" phase of the software lifecycle is effectively factored out, making the opportunity for user choice minimal. (Unless you run NoScript or LibreJS by default, which I support.) Economically, SaaS is the path of least resistance. You deliver your product through the same platform that people use to browse cat pics, and it works invisibly enough that users never question whether it's doing the right thing. This creates ample opportunity for externalities to be dumped onto the end user, as we observe with the nascent privacy crisis. Perhaps such an externality is of a sufficiently complex or speculative nature that users may not be able to identify it, or willing to care. But that doesn't mean it's ruled out; at least in theory, integrating with the existing legal system by way of distributing your code under a Libre license seems like a good way to nip possible shenanigans in the bud. (As far as your code is concerned, of course - as opposed to everyone else's non-free code out there.) Of course, everyone is free to do what they think best, but it's good to have the FSF's radical evangelism as a point of reference - it's quite possible to do meaningful computing in this way, although maybe not as part of an organization that ignores the ethical underpinnings of its methods! (And that's what computers do best nowadays: algowashing.) Sadly, I find the FSF's approach to the Web somewhat misplaced - for software that is neither locally deployed, nor accessed as an opaque service, but remotely delivered on-demand, focus should be on the delivery chain being auditable, and source maps being available, in the case of WASM and minified JS. Instead, we get LibreJS, which is, as far as I can see, a license-based whitelist - regardless of the fact that non-minified JS is open-source by definition and never compiled to a binary form. The GPL doesn't make a whole lot of sense for embedded scripts, powerful as they are. It would be more relevant for WebAssembly, that's for sure.
sildur 5y ago
I also have a right to handle their HTML the way I see fit, for instance by blocking their ads. If they don't like it, they should make their website private.
- paulcole 5y ago
  > I also have a right to handle their HTML the way I see fit I see this more as you technically having the ability to do this, but what makes it your “right”?
  - LocalPCGuy 5y ago
    Not the OP, but I have the right to control what code is delivered to (downloaded) and run on my computer. That doesn't mean I have the right to use a website that decides they aren't good with me doing so without the ads or other portions I may block. I don't believe I have any moral obligation to make that choice myself. Simply put, I have the right to block ads, and the website has the right to block usage to me if I don't load said ads, trackers, etc.
    - paulcole 5y ago
      > Simply put, I have the right to block ads Let’s assume I agree that you have been tricked into following a link that is infested with terrible ads and that I agree you have the right to block those ads. Isn’t it then your obligation to never visit that site again? You understand that ads are how the website has chosen to make money. You don’t like how they have chosen to make money so you simply never visit the website again, right? It’s like if you found out a restaurant didn’t accept cash and still kept going to eat there when you only had a credit card, knowing in advance you can’t and won’t pay.
      - sildur 5y ago
        > Isn’t it then your obligation to never visit that site again? Not really. As long as your site is public, I can enter. If you don't want that, make it private, or subscription only. > It’s like if you found out a restaurant didn’t accept cash and still kept going to eat there when you only had a credit card, knowing in advance you can’t and won’t pay. It's more like going to a public museum that accepts donations and not making a donation. The place is public, and I decide if I pay or not.
ddevault 5y ago
No one has a right to a viable business model. If it makes a negative impact on society, we can and should regulate it. Ads are a pox on this Earth.

topicseed 5y ago

Would you say the same about free TV's ads coming mid-program? Or newspapers you actually buy that still contain ads? How would such a trade be done upfront in your opinion? In a way, you are the one coming to PLATFORM (site, newspaper, TV program), so don't come back maybe, but don't tell PLATFORM whether they can out a distracting vase at the entrance, or ads on the sidebar, or a distracting ticker at the bottom of the screen.

deallocator 5y ago
I think the correct analogy would be that there's a corner in the screen where advertisement is playing constantly while whatever show you're watching runs. Obviously the advertisement is going to distract you from time to time, and you won't have your full attention on the show.
- laurowyn 5y ago
  Is forcibly breaking away from the content you want to watch every 10 minutes to show ads not distracting? or the 2 minutes of repeated content from before the break to remind you what was happening before you got distracted by the ads not also distracting? Have you ever watched a show with the ads removed and seen how much of it is actually repeated just because of ad placements? Just because it's not on screen the entire time doesn't mean it isn't a distraction. TV ad breaks are one of the best methods for producers - guaranteed impressions, broad audiences, official metrics, etc. - whilst also being the worst for consumers. An hour of my time set aside for watching something I enjoy now contains 20 minutes of content I don't care about at all, and cannot skip/bypass if not interested, and the 40 minutes of content is closer to 30 because of repeated content either side of ad breaks.
  - sokoloff 5y ago
    That is a huge part of why TiVo was so transformative when it came out. “We’ll be back in...<skip, skip, skip, skip>...and we’re back.”
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

sillysaurusx 5y ago

They don't have to be. Let me do some advertising right now. Daniel Naroditsky's twitch stream is amazing. Go watch 'em https://www.twitch.tv/gmnaroditsky https://www.twitch.tv/gmnaroditsky (If you're into chess, you almost certainly already know about him.) He also gets into feuds with Hikaru and won't shut up about him for some reason nowadays, and is constantly on a soapbox, but whatever. The chess is fun to watch. Now, if you saw a banner ad for that on lichess, would you really feel awful about it? I mean, that's a fine perspective, but I'm of the opinion of "just shovel all the content in front of me and let me pick out what I like." It works wonderfully on YouTube's recommendation algorithm. But of course, your feelings are justified for modern ads as currently implemented. Mobile games are just a complete horror fest now. (It was delightful to discover Cardinal Quest 2, since every aspect of the game can be played without paying a cent or seeing an ad. It's more or less "chess, but with monsters.")

bscphil 5y ago
> Now, if you saw a banner ad for that on lichess, would you really feel awful about it? Frankly, yes. Lichess is such a relief because I know it's a place I can go without someone trying to sell me something.
- sillysaurusx 5y ago
  Fair!
- amadvance 5y ago
  Did you donated to it ? Because this is possible only with donations. I did, but if at some point they will have to add some ad, I won't consider that awful if done in the right way.
  - paxys 5y ago
    > I did, but if at some point they will have to add some ad Why? Plenty of sites are able to survive solely on a donation model, even large ones. Look at Wikipedia.
5y ago

Stratoscope 5y ago

> Ads are an attack on our attention. That may well be true, but let me tell you a story. I recently got into binge watching some old TV shows I enjoyed as a kid, like What's My Line and a few others. But most of the YouTube copies have the commercials stripped out! The few videos that have the old commercials are a blast. The Remington Rand Univac Electronic Brain. The Remington Rand Shaver! And as we all know, 9 out of 10 doctors recommend Camels. Flintstones fan? How about Fred and Barney sneaking out back to smoke some Winstons while Wilma and Betty mow the lawn. I wonder which of today's web ads will achieve the cultural significance of these old classics?

zorked 5y ago
Sorry but those commercials have no cultural significance. It's just stuff you remember.
- Stratoscope 5y ago
  You are right, of course. But isn't "cultural significance" just another way of saying "stuff people remember?"
  - auxym 5y ago
    A literature teacher of mine would say, "culture is what you remember after you've forgotten everything about my class".
- catlifeonmars 5y ago
  What exactly is cultural significance?
vishnugupta 5y ago
I too look back at old ads with fondness and reminisce about the simple times of late 80s and early 90s. However when I recollect how I felt at that time about those ads it's no different from today. The fondness that I associate with those ads are because they are a window to a world that was simpler and in someways beautiful. Do I miss those times? Somewhat. Do I want those days back? Probably not, because for me (and my generation) the progress has been stupendous.

tayo42 5y ago

Those few good years after pop up ads were eliminated by pop up blockers and ad blockers was so nice. Then the war on ad block began and internet is worse then it used to be. Auto play videos in a modal that can't be closed that start with a video on. Wtf

cletus 5y ago
It's pretty much mandatory to have (yet another) addon to disable autoplaying videos, sadly. I think I hate this more than ads, honestly (not all autoplaying videos are ads).
- smichel17 5y ago
  Firefox lets you do this without need for an addon. Stop using an ad company's browser if you don't want to see ads; there is a huge conflict of interest.
  - pessimizer 5y ago
    Google also almost entirely finances firefox development.
    - gordian-mind 5y ago
      Does this mean Firefox is controlled opposition? }:)
- grishka 5y ago
  Thankfully all news websites serve their videos from a separate domain, so you only have to block that in your ad blocker. Or, just disable JavaScript and hope that won't break images because loading images with JavaScript is apparently also the hot new thing to do.
alpaca128 5y ago
Popups and ads can still be blocked very effectively. Since I downloaded a comprehensive hosts file blacklist and filled all checkboxes in uBlock Origin's settings it's extremely rare something slips through, and if it does I can just interactively add a rule for it with a few clicks.

roenxi 5y ago

That is like saying the taste of good food is an attack on our reward system. Attention works that way because it is often helpful. On a normal day advertising is pretty useless. When the world is changing it is a very effective way to find that out. It is part of the system that drives rapid improvement.

Chris2048 5y ago
The sugar and salt added to food is an attack on our reward system - but that doesn't make it good food. The fact is that human biological impulse does not line up with rational objectives. People wouldn't need to be subjected to ads if it was desirable - they'd ask for them, much like those "shopping channels" you can choose to watch.
- roenxi 5y ago
  As a general comment - human biological impulses do generally line up with rational objectives. That is why we have them. Normally they line up with ideas that are so good it makes sense to embed them in how we live. > People wouldn't need to be subjected to ads if it was desirable Substantial value from ads is they communicate (1) what people didn't yet know existed and (2) what everyone else knows (because they saw the ad too). Ads work by and large because people want the products that the ads are selling. A lot of ads are stupid and I'd personally rather not see them - but if I think that, they also probably aren't targeted at me.
  - Chris2048 5y ago
    > That is why we have them evolutionary objectives are not rational. Nor are they particularly up-to-date, especially sugar cravings. Addictions, vices and impulses of many kinds are not at all rational, and it is a virtue to have the willpower to resist them. > (1) what people didn't yet know existed This is far from the only objective, and the substance of many ads demonstrates this: why do brands like coca-cola pay top-dollar for superbowl ad time? You would think they are well known enough.. > (2) what everyone else knows Ads are not knowledge, it is common cultural reference for the purpose of advertisement. I don't see the value in this if you are not an advertiser. > Ads work by and large because people want the products that the ads are selling If we follow the same logic, no one would object to ad blockers, b/c the people who want to see ads wouldn't use them.

vasco 5y ago

When you open the window do you feel the roads, houses or buildings you see are an attack on your attention? That your own house is an attack on the attention of others? That people would rather just see the raw nature that was there before?

ulimn 5y ago
Yes, I do sometimes.
- Hoasi 5y ago
  Absolutely. Modern architecture, coupled with politicians and developers’s greed and the lack of urban planners care, can be an attack on our intelligence, our senses and our basic human aesthetic needs. It’s not just about capturing our attention.
jedimastert 5y ago
I don't, but I don't think it's as uncommon a view as you seem to make it out to be.
paxys 5y ago
No but a street full of posters and billboards definitely is.

jedimastert 5y ago

Everything is an "attack" on our attention. It's not a very useful distinction. I clicked the link because the title caught my attention. I come to this website because it has a rotation of good content, all of which is more likely than not to catch and hold my attention, keeping it from something else. I also don't generally agree that all ads are bad, which may put me in the minority

GavinMcG 5y ago
Even accepting that everything counts as an attack, there can't be an ad attacking your attention when it doesn't exist on the page in the first place.
- jedimastert 5y ago
  I put "attack" in scare-quotes for a reason. I don't see any of these things as an "attack". If I did, I wouldn't do them.
  - GavinMcG 5y ago
    Well then you're not really engaging with the parent comment. The author said they "decide to direct my attention to this website" and used "attack" because they "didn't agree to getting my attention diverted." The useful distinction is between the content you came to the website to direct your attention toward, and things that tear your attention away.
- ApolloFortyNine 5y ago
  >there can't be an ad attacking your attention when it doesn't exist on the page in the first place. We can even go one step further and say there can't be an ad attacking your attention when the page itself doesn't exist at all. The bulk of the internet wouldn't exist if not for ads. Things like youtube almost certainly could not exist, with how expensive it is to store data, provide bandwidth, develop the site itself. It's only thanks to ads that the internet is where it is today.

paulcole 5y ago

> Ads are an attack on our attention. He said after celebrating 10 years posting on a site that’s an ad for a VC fund...

silicon2401 5y ago

This is a pretty extreme and entitled position. You're the one assuming that the website will offer you something of interest without any reason to do so, and that you should receive it however you want (without ads). If anything it's more reasonable to assume that you'll see ads on every page you go to. I take the complete opposite position: if I take the effort to make a website, I'll do what I want with it. Maybe I consider your visit an attack on my bandwidth, and I compensate with ads. If you don't like it, you're free to not visit it. Unless I told you in advance that you're not going to see ads, there's no basis for assuming that there won't be ads just like there's no basis for assuming you won't see NSFW content on a random website, religious content, political content, etc

Chris2048 5y ago
> You're the one assuming that the website will offer you something of interest without any reason to do so Says who? Arguing against ads isn't arguing against compensation. You're assuming what is being assumed.
- silicon2401 5y ago
  Says the comment I replied to > When I go to a website, I decide to direct my attention to this website, because I believe it will offer something of interest to me.
  - Chris2048 5y ago
    That quote doesn't contradict what I said, since it says nothing about "without any reason to do so". You are specifically talking about compensation, which that quote does not.
    - silicon2401 5y ago
      You must be pulling my leg, you're not even addressing what I've been commenting