4 ms·

> The author does shill out for a VPN company That's a weird way of saying "trying to make a living"

margalabargala 5y ago
Finding new and creative ways to stick advertisements in front of people in ways that they can't easily avoid is indeed a way that some people try to make a living. It just happens to be a way of making a living of which many people, on HN and off, have a negative opinion. There have been plenty of poorly regarded professions throughout history that still drew people because they were paid, despite the negative publicity. Tax collectors in Ancient Rome were also just trying to make a living.
- kcplate 5y ago
  > Finding new and creative ways to stick advertisements in front of people in ways that they can't easily avoid is indeed a way that some people try to make a living. In other words “Pretty much all media, everywhere”
  - margalabargala 5y ago
    Strong disagree. Almost all music (distinct from "music platforms") does not contain any advertising. Many movies contain product placements, but many more do not. TV shows frequently have ads embedded, but platforms like HBO do not show ads. Almost all paintings, sculptures, or other art media do not contain ads, excepting those created specifically for the advertising industry. Considering the totality of media created by humanity to date, I would suspect that advertising is present in a small minority.
    - kcplate 5y ago
      Music - concert shirts, terrestrial radio. Even streaming paid streaming services slip in sponsorship mentions. HBO - Owned by AT&T and WarnerMedia, literally WM has $8B in rev much from their platforms and brands that do sell advertising. Paintings and sculpture - you think museums aren’t an advertisement in of themselves? You don’t think cities and communities don’t subsidize those for cultural reasons do you? It’s a draw. But sure, some “art” is not advertisement saturated, but make no mistake—the organizations that distribute it or provide access to it..are filthy with it.
      - margalabargala 5y ago
        IMO calling museums advertisements for a city/community is a stretch of the definition for the purpose of this discussion- like yeah, it could technically be considered that way, but it's so broad that it sort of renders the whole point moot. > the organizations that distribute it or provide access to it..are filthy with it. I think your point there is the crux of the whole thing for me. I see a big distinction between a piece of media that has an advertisement literally embedded within it by the creator and presented as part of the finished whole (example, a podcast where they shill some service or other) versus an ad-free piece of media where some other third party distributor shows advertisements alongside the media. The podcast in question further up the thread falls into the first bucket, while, for example, a hard news piece by a journalist that is then displayed on a website with banner ads is quantitatively different. In the latter, the piece of media exists, and can be experienced in its totality with all ads taken away, while in the podcast example, the ads are inextricable from the whole without altering the work itself.
        kcplate 5y ago
        I think we are just defining “media” differently. Yours is not wrong…art, music, etc…it’s certainly media…as the plural of “medium”. I’m defining media more as the distributor or publisher of created works. I’d argue that short of a direct pay for content model, that most publishers/distributors are using advertising in some form as either their for profit business model, or to supplement and offset the publishing costs.
LeifCarrotson 5y ago
I absolutely support Alex trying to make a living - I bought his cookbook! I know he has a Patreon and branded gear. I really hope he gets advertising deals from companies whose products he uses to share things he genuinely believes in. But no one really believes in scammy Youtube-advertising VPNs...right?

Finding new and creative ways to stick advertisements in front of people in ways that they can't easily avoid is indeed a way that some people try to make a living. It just happens to be a way of making a living of which many people, on HN and off, have a negative opinion. There have been plenty of poorly regarded professions throughout history that still drew people because they were paid, despite the negative publicity. Tax collectors in Ancient Rome were also just trying to make a living.

kcplate 5y ago
> Finding new and creative ways to stick advertisements in front of people in ways that they can't easily avoid is indeed a way that some people try to make a living. In other words “Pretty much all media, everywhere”
- margalabargala 5y ago
  Strong disagree. Almost all music (distinct from "music platforms") does not contain any advertising. Many movies contain product placements, but many more do not. TV shows frequently have ads embedded, but platforms like HBO do not show ads. Almost all paintings, sculptures, or other art media do not contain ads, excepting those created specifically for the advertising industry. Considering the totality of media created by humanity to date, I would suspect that advertising is present in a small minority.
  - kcplate 5y ago
    Music - concert shirts, terrestrial radio. Even streaming paid streaming services slip in sponsorship mentions. HBO - Owned by AT&T and WarnerMedia, literally WM has $8B in rev much from their platforms and brands that do sell advertising. Paintings and sculpture - you think museums aren’t an advertisement in of themselves? You don’t think cities and communities don’t subsidize those for cultural reasons do you? It’s a draw. But sure, some “art” is not advertisement saturated, but make no mistake—the organizations that distribute it or provide access to it..are filthy with it.
    - margalabargala 5y ago
      IMO calling museums advertisements for a city/community is a stretch of the definition for the purpose of this discussion- like yeah, it could technically be considered that way, but it's so broad that it sort of renders the whole point moot. > the organizations that distribute it or provide access to it..are filthy with it. I think your point there is the crux of the whole thing for me. I see a big distinction between a piece of media that has an advertisement literally embedded within it by the creator and presented as part of the finished whole (example, a podcast where they shill some service or other) versus an ad-free piece of media where some other third party distributor shows advertisements alongside the media. The podcast in question further up the thread falls into the first bucket, while, for example, a hard news piece by a journalist that is then displayed on a website with banner ads is quantitatively different. In the latter, the piece of media exists, and can be experienced in its totality with all ads taken away, while in the podcast example, the ads are inextricable from the whole without altering the work itself.
      - kcplate 5y ago
        I think we are just defining “media” differently. Yours is not wrong…art, music, etc…it’s certainly media…as the plural of “medium”. I’m defining media more as the distributor or publisher of created works. I’d argue that short of a direct pay for content model, that most publishers/distributors are using advertising in some form as either their for profit business model, or to supplement and offset the publishing costs.

LeifCarrotson 5y ago

I absolutely support Alex trying to make a living - I bought his cookbook! I know he has a Patreon and branded gear. I really hope he gets advertising deals from companies whose products he uses to share things he genuinely believes in. But no one really believes in scammy Youtube-advertising VPNs...right?