50 ms·
No, you're very badly mistaken. Are you a shill for an advertising company, by the way? Deciding to put ads on your work means you are primarily making money b
by ronaldx 13y ago
No, you're very badly mistaken. Are you a shill for an advertising company, by the way?
Deciding to put ads on your work means you are primarily making money by serving people ads, not from what you create.
You are now probably writing stories like "1 Weird Trick To Get People To Read This Blog..." - populist work that fulfils your essential need for pageviews. This is not content of the type you claim, whereby people think or draw meaning from the work.
That aspirational type of work normally has a small audience - at first - that wouldn't satisfy your need for advertising revenue: you can't make ends meet by depending just on that during your lifetime.
The beast of advertising only takes talent and creativity away from human society.
- diminoten 13y agoNate Silver wouldn't have a job without advertisement. Neither would Glenn Greenwald, Walter Cronchite, Dan Rather, Brian Williams, Tom Brokaw, or Peter Jennings. TV shows like Seinfeld, Friends, The Wire, Breaking Bad, The Walking Dead, and M.A.S.H. would not exist without ads. Babe Ruth, Jackie Robinson, Peyton Manning, Michael Phelps, Michael Jordan, Michael Tyson, Tiger Woods, and Larry Byrd would not have done the things they did without ads - no one would have paid them to. Ads pay for people who are good at what they do to do what they're good at what they do as a means to pay for the other things they have to do. You couldn't possibly be more wrong about advertisements - without ads, there would be no US as you know it today.
- eevilspock 13y agoPeople made similar arguments for slavery. What I'm trying to say is your argument for ads is full of logical fallacies. Without ads, the US would be a better place.
- diminoten 13y agoAds are not slavery, Walter Cronkite has no such evil on his consciousness.