3 ms·

The Internet Needs The Ignorant

12 points by sammotea 14y ago

hipsters_unite 14y ago
Wow, the tone of this article is way off. Potentially decent point about online revenue obscured by a massive superiority complex.
- sammotea 14y ago
  A lack of writing talent rather than the intention; I simply couldn't think of a better word than ignorance to describe the phenomenon. I was watching one of my elderly relatives struggle with Google search (hitting link-bait-y ads) when I started thinking about it. It answered the question "who on earth is clicking on al the ads?!". My bad if I gave the wrong impression. I am more than fond of my Nan in all other senses. But she is ignorant when it comes to online activity.
brugidou 14y ago
I clicked on a Google Search ad and bought something less than 2 hours ago. Am I part of the Ignorant?
- sammotea 14y ago
  As I tried [failed...] to explain through the examples, the point refers more to spammy and content-poor ads than highly relevant and targeted ads. So probably not so much retail ads targeting specific intent-clear search terms (e.g. SEARCH: "buy book-title online), rather Facebook-type "Top 3 routes to a flat stomach discovered by this 94 year old woman". Do they do as well? I don't know. But I see them all the time and the post was my stream-of-consciousness as I try to not mind that fact.
Jach 14y ago
No, it doesn't. The main argument here is this: the internet needs ad revenue from the ignorant masses to continue existing in its current form. While most people think ignorance is a bad thing, we're presented with this problem that if we got rid of ignorance, we'd also get rid of the internet, therefore we should shake our heads sadly and accept ignorant people as either a good thing or at least a necessary evil. How about we keep trying to reduce the number of ignorant people, and if it's true that the internet can't exist without them, we fix the root problem of why that is? Does anyone really think the only solution to such a problem is "we need more ignorant people"?

12 points by sammotea 14y ago

Wow, the tone of this article is way off. Potentially decent point about online revenue obscured by a massive superiority complex.

sammotea 14y ago
A lack of writing talent rather than the intention; I simply couldn't think of a better word than ignorance to describe the phenomenon. I was watching one of my elderly relatives struggle with Google search (hitting link-bait-y ads) when I started thinking about it. It answered the question "who on earth is clicking on al the ads?!". My bad if I gave the wrong impression. I am more than fond of my Nan in all other senses. But she is ignorant when it comes to online activity.

brugidou 14y ago

I clicked on a Google Search ad and bought something less than 2 hours ago. Am I part of the Ignorant?

sammotea 14y ago
As I tried [failed...] to explain through the examples, the point refers more to spammy and content-poor ads than highly relevant and targeted ads. So probably not so much retail ads targeting specific intent-clear search terms (e.g. SEARCH: "buy book-title online), rather Facebook-type "Top 3 routes to a flat stomach discovered by this 94 year old woman". Do they do as well? I don't know. But I see them all the time and the post was my stream-of-consciousness as I try to not mind that fact.

Jach 14y ago

No, it doesn't. The main argument here is this: the internet needs ad revenue from the ignorant masses to continue existing in its current form. While most people think ignorance is a bad thing, we're presented with this problem that if we got rid of ignorance, we'd also get rid of the internet, therefore we should shake our heads sadly and accept ignorant people as either a good thing or at least a necessary evil. How about we keep trying to reduce the number of ignorant people, and if it's true that the internet can't exist without them, we fix the root problem of why that is? Does anyone really think the only solution to such a problem is "we need more ignorant people"?