5 ms·

Ads will expand to fill all online spaces. Ads will inevitably come to both, it's just a matter of when they respectively need or decide to capture that profit

Ads will expand to fill all online spaces. Ads will inevitably come to both, it's just a matter of when they respectively need or decide to capture that profit and when they feel their users are sufficiently dependent so as not to be able to leave.

AndyKelley 9mo ago
No ads on Wikipedia tho, not even after 25 years.
- Lerc 9mo ago
  Do you not think those intrusive banners and popups implying that Wikipedia is about to imminently go broke unless you give them money, are ads?
  - AndyKelley 9mo ago
    I think you're letting pedantry hinder you from seeing a useful pattern.
    - Lerc 9mo ago
      I shall take that as a no, then. I don't think it takes pedantry to think advertising in order to solicit funds for a non-profit is still advertising. If anything the criteria I would apply is does it diminish the user experience while attempting to motivate the viewer to act in a manner that benefits the advertiser. May I ask why you do not consider it advertising? Is it because it is asking for donations? Because it is a non-profit? If so, why would those factors exempt them? I am certainly not alone in thinking their fundraising campaigns are intrusive https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33175098 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33175098
      - sadeshmukh 9mo ago
        It's about who they're fundraising for. Wikipedia fundraising for Wikipedia is fundamentally different than selling out ad space to the highest bidder.
      - AndyKelley 9mo ago
        As an example, a line that they don't cross, but a for-profit company absolutely would, is compromising the integrity of the encyclopedia articles. For example, a marketing department would pay a lot of money for Wikipedia to delete or soften https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_of_Nestl%C3%A9 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_of_Nestl%C3%A9 but they'll never do that, not for profit at least.
- cwillu 9mo ago
  The first fundraising banner on wikipedia was in 2003. That is unquestionably an advertisement, and not even an ethical one given the misleading nature of their campaigns these days.
  - Insanity 9mo ago
    I’m going to say this is a different ballpark. They are fundraising for themselves.. on their own website.. That’s quite different from shoving ads in your face where it doesn’t belong. Like an ad for Copilot on a YouTube video. IMO it’s distinct.
  - bdangubic 9mo ago
    never thought I’d see fundraising compared to ads but here we are… :)

AndyKelley 9mo ago

No ads on Wikipedia tho, not even after 25 years.

Lerc 9mo ago
Do you not think those intrusive banners and popups implying that Wikipedia is about to imminently go broke unless you give them money, are ads?
- AndyKelley 9mo ago
  I think you're letting pedantry hinder you from seeing a useful pattern.
  - Lerc 9mo ago
    I shall take that as a no, then. I don't think it takes pedantry to think advertising in order to solicit funds for a non-profit is still advertising. If anything the criteria I would apply is does it diminish the user experience while attempting to motivate the viewer to act in a manner that benefits the advertiser. May I ask why you do not consider it advertising? Is it because it is asking for donations? Because it is a non-profit? If so, why would those factors exempt them? I am certainly not alone in thinking their fundraising campaigns are intrusive https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33175098 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33175098
    - sadeshmukh 9mo ago
      It's about who they're fundraising for. Wikipedia fundraising for Wikipedia is fundamentally different than selling out ad space to the highest bidder.
    - AndyKelley 9mo ago
      As an example, a line that they don't cross, but a for-profit company absolutely would, is compromising the integrity of the encyclopedia articles. For example, a marketing department would pay a lot of money for Wikipedia to delete or soften https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_of_Nestl%C3%A9 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_of_Nestl%C3%A9 but they'll never do that, not for profit at least.
cwillu 9mo ago
The first fundraising banner on wikipedia was in 2003. That is unquestionably an advertisement, and not even an ethical one given the misleading nature of their campaigns these days.
- Insanity 9mo ago
  I’m going to say this is a different ballpark. They are fundraising for themselves.. on their own website.. That’s quite different from shoving ads in your face where it doesn’t belong. Like an ad for Copilot on a YouTube video. IMO it’s distinct.
- bdangubic 9mo ago
  never thought I’d see fundraising compared to ads but here we are… :)