The world would be a far better place if advertising were greatly restricted - not just because it's annoying and bad for privacy, but also because it's bad for economies. Advertising is why you could work hard at a career your whole life and make less money than Kim K would for farting into a walkie-talkie (or less theoretically, less money than Karl Lagerfeld's cat made for posing on car's dashboard), and it also fuels much of the IP industry's work-once-get-paid-forever business model. It should be restr
I think your are conflating things like 'forever copyright' with advertising that don't need to be related in that way. I also think ads are quite useful. When I went shopping for TVs a couple years ago I had not idea Ultra Short Throw projectors were even a choice. I vaguely new they existed for commercial applications but had no idea bright enough ones for residential use were a potentially affordable alternative until I saw some targets ads for them.
Sometimes you do need to educate the public thru adver
When I went shopping for TVs a couple years ago I had not idea Ultra Short Throw projectors were even a choice. I... had no idea bright enough ones for residential use were a potentially affordable alternative until I saw some targets ads for them.
In the absence of advertising you would have, or should have, found out about them through research. Research would have taken you to the allow-listed sites mentioned by OP and others. Your minor success story does not justify the rest of us being involuntarily subjected to unlimited, no-holds-barred advertising.
Sometimes you do need to educate the public thru advertising. Arguable targeted ads (if they are well targeted) actually are less of annoyance than blanketed ads.
"You", Kemosabe? "I" don't need to use advertising to educate anybody, and I suspect few others here do. So a), please don't conflate advertisers and Slashdotters, and b), please don't conflate adve
In the absence of advertising you would have, or should have, found out about them through research. Research would have taken you to the allow-listed sites mentioned by OP and others.
Unless I'm severely misunderstanding you, this is the scenario I see playing out:
1. Allow-listed sites would still have to advertise on Research. 2. Research would still have to advertise in other media. 3. Ad-supported websites other than Research would need to either switch to a paywall or go out of business. 4. As each site puts up a paywall to make ends meet, it becomes more difficult for a reader to follow citations in an article because of the sheer number of other sites to which one is expected to subscribe. 5. Large numbers of websites going out of business would cause enough home Internet access subscribers to cancel their subscriptions that the local cable company or the local fiber company can no longer afford to maintain its last mile. 6. Good luck logging onto Research from home.
Where did I make an unreasonable leap?
"I" don't need to use advertising to educate anybody, and I suspect few others here do.
Is there a place for public service advertisements? For example, such an ad can state that certain phenomena happening to one's body are symptoms of a disease and that a physician can offer treatment options.
Unless I'm severely misunderstanding you, this is the scenario I see playing out:
1. Allow-listed sites would still have to advertise on Research.
2. Research would still have to advertise in other media.
3. Ad-supported websites other than Research would need to either switch to a paywall or go out of business.
4. As each site puts up a paywall to make ends meet, it becomes more difficult for a reader to follow citations in an article because of the sheer number of other sites to which one is expected to subscribe.
5. Large numbers of websites going out of business would cause enough home Internet access subscribers to cancel their subscriptions that the local cable company or the local fiber company can no longer afford to maintain its last mile.
6. Good luck logging onto Research from home.
Where did I make an unreasonable leap?
Nope, no unreasonable leaps there. I hadn't thought it through. What we need is a different way to fund the Internet, but I don't know what that would look like. I only know that advertising as it is exists is fundamentally bad; not only because it's manipulative, but because its entire raison d'etre is to encourage the consumerism that is making our planet uninhabitable and our presence on it unsustainable. And then there's the tracking and data gathering built into today's advertising - that's a whole oth
Memory fault -- core...uh...um...core... Oh dammit, I forget!
Advertising should be greatly restricted (Score:5, Interesting)
The world would be a far better place if advertising were greatly restricted - not just because it's annoying and bad for privacy, but also because it's bad for economies. Advertising is why you could work hard at a career your whole life and make less money than Kim K would for farting into a walkie-talkie (or less theoretically, less money than Karl Lagerfeld's cat made for posing on car's dashboard), and it also fuels much of the IP industry's work-once-get-paid-forever business model. It should be restr
Re: (Score:2)
I think your are conflating things like 'forever copyright' with advertising that don't need to be related in that way. I also think ads are quite useful. When I went shopping for TVs a couple years ago I had not idea Ultra Short Throw projectors were even a choice. I vaguely new they existed for commercial applications but had no idea bright enough ones for residential use were a potentially affordable alternative until I saw some targets ads for them.
Sometimes you do need to educate the public thru adver
Re: (Score:2)
When I went shopping for TVs a couple years ago I had not idea Ultra Short Throw projectors were even a choice. I ... had no idea bright enough ones for residential use were a potentially affordable alternative until I saw some targets ads for them.
In the absence of advertising you would have, or should have, found out about them through research. Research would have taken you to the allow-listed sites mentioned by OP and others. Your minor success story does not justify the rest of us being involuntarily subjected to unlimited, no-holds-barred advertising.
Sometimes you do need to educate the public thru advertising. Arguable targeted ads (if they are well targeted) actually are less of annoyance than blanketed ads.
"You", Kemosabe? "I" don't need to use advertising to educate anybody, and I suspect few others here do. So a), please don't conflate advertisers and Slashdotters, and b), please don't conflate adve
How else to keep websites in business? (Score:2)
In the absence of advertising you would have, or should have, found out about them through research. Research would have taken you to the allow-listed sites mentioned by OP and others.
Unless I'm severely misunderstanding you, this is the scenario I see playing out:
1. Allow-listed sites would still have to advertise on Research.
2. Research would still have to advertise in other media.
3. Ad-supported websites other than Research would need to either switch to a paywall or go out of business.
4. As each site puts up a paywall to make ends meet, it becomes more difficult for a reader to follow citations in an article because of the sheer number of other sites to which one is expected to subscribe.
5. Large numbers of websites going out of business would cause enough home Internet access subscribers to cancel their subscriptions that the local cable company or the local fiber company can no longer afford to maintain its last mile.
6. Good luck logging onto Research from home.
Where did I make an unreasonable leap?
"I" don't need to use advertising to educate anybody, and I suspect few others here do.
Is there a place for public service advertisements? For example, such an ad can state that certain phenomena happening to one's body are symptoms of a disease and that a physician can offer treatment options.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless I'm severely misunderstanding you, this is the scenario I see playing out:
1. Allow-listed sites would still have to advertise on Research. 2. Research would still have to advertise in other media. 3. Ad-supported websites other than Research would need to either switch to a paywall or go out of business. 4. As each site puts up a paywall to make ends meet, it becomes more difficult for a reader to follow citations in an article because of the sheer number of other sites to which one is expected to subscribe. 5. Large numbers of websites going out of business would cause enough home Internet access subscribers to cancel their subscriptions that the local cable company or the local fiber company can no longer afford to maintain its last mile. 6. Good luck logging onto Research from home.
Where did I make an unreasonable leap?
Nope, no unreasonable leaps there. I hadn't thought it through. What we need is a different way to fund the Internet, but I don't know what that would look like. I only know that advertising as it is exists is fundamentally bad; not only because it's manipulative, but because its entire raison d'etre is to encourage the consumerism that is making our planet uninhabitable and our presence on it unsustainable. And then there's the tracking and data gathering built into today's advertising - that's a whole oth