Epic context menu
-
@Lorne Kates said:
It's sunny out and I have a dance show to rehearse for. Don't take my silence for giving up. I'll be wasting more of my employer's money tomorrow morning.
You could just type the single sentence that answers my question in a clear unambiguous way and be done with it.
-
@joe.edwards said:
You can say it's not the same thing at all, but it really is. We form relationships with brands. Their sharing information with each other feels like a violation of trust.
I guess maybe you view things differently than I do. I don't see something I disclose to a for-profit company to be anything like talking to a trusted friend. My relationship with brands is "They make shit for me and if it's acceptable, I might consider buying it." I don't have much "trust" in a brand. I mean, I'm pretty sure Intel isn't going to kidnap my kids or anything. And if it's a well-established company with a history of reliability, I may give them the benefit of the doubt on a new, unknown product, but that's about it.
-
I used Business Associate B in my example to subtly hint that while Friend A is in my social circle, BA-B is in my professional circle. Friend A knows I go out on binges of cocaine and hookers at night, and BA-B thinks I prefer heroin and midgets at midday; but no, BA-B was "guy I just met in a suit and tie". I'm just shaking his hand for the first time. I expect him to know perhaps my professional reputation, because I'm meeting with him in that capacity, but he somehow knows things I only tell my friends, and that is weird as all get-out.
-
@too_many_usernames said:
You can't really have it both ways - you either watch ads and let the ad people pay for it, or you only get what scraps fall from the patronage model. (Although Kickstarter seems to have demonstrated that patrons don't have to be single rich entities by any means.)
I'm okay with ads. I don't like them and I wish I could pay to not see them, but whatever. (Actually, come to think of it, I rarely see ads anyway. The only TV and movies I see are Netflix, which is ad-free. I don't do much surfing on sites that actually advertise, although Google does display ads alongside my search results and email, I just never, ever notice them. Most of the ads I see are from doing my job, because the company I work for sells ad space.)
@too_many_usernames said:
I'd argue they tolerate the ads and appreciate the bathroom / snack breaks.
Well, if the choice is shelling out money; watching ads; or not having any TV, they'll pick #2 reliably.
@too_many_usernames said:
...and the people paying for it are now saying "no you have to do this (watch the ads we paid the content producer to put in front of you) first."
If by "now" you mean "since the 1920s".
@too_many_usernames said:
Specifically, old advertisers were happy to just have the TV broadcast the ads and the viewer could do whatever they want, compared to now when they are saying "nu uh you can't go to the other room while this ad is active."
I must have missed getting the implant that prevents me from walking away from the computer/TV when an ad is playing..
-
@joe.edwards said:
I think your question has the same answer as, "why is wiretapping illegal without a warrant?"
Because governments have a long history of abusing police powers to extort money and power from people and suppress those who stand up to them? What does this have to do with some website showing you ads in the privacy of your own home? Nothing they're doing is abusive. Quite the contrary, they're trying to sway you to willingly give them money, not using coercion to take something from you.
-
@joe.edwards said:
and that is weird as all get-out.
Weird because...?
I feel like I'm just asking the same questions over and over here. Am I the mutant because I don't think that's weird/uncomfortable at all? On the contrary, I'd be pretty excited because if the guy in this business meeting has the same friend I do, that's probably going to help me make whatever deal I'm there to make.
-
@joe.edwards said:
I used Business Associate B in my example to subtly hint that while Friend A is in my social circle, BA-B is in my professional circle. Friend A knows I go out on binges of cocaine and hookers at night, and BA-B thinks I prefer heroin and midgets at midday; but no, BA-B was "guy I just met in a suit and tie". I'm just shaking his hand for the first time. I expect him to know perhaps my professional reputation, because I'm meeting with him in that capacity, but he somehow knows things I only tell my friends, and that is weird as all get-out.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you get a targeted ad on a site like Amazon, Amazon doesn't actually know anything about it. Amazon is like, "Hey Google, I'm serving up a webpage to this user here. Know anything about him? If so, wanna put an ad in there for me? I won't peek, promise" and then Google is like, "I know him, here you go" and then Amazon shows you the page. Amazon doesn't actually know what ad it's serving you, technically.
In your analogy, this would be like Friend A telling BA-B that you really like a certain food, codenamed Xark, and he should tell the waiter to order it for you by the time you get there. He knows you like it, but he doesn't actually know what the food is.
-
@joe.edwards said:
I used Business Associate B in my example to subtly hint that while Friend A is in my social circle, BA-B is in my professional circle. Friend A knows I go out on binges of cocaine and hookers at night, and BA-B thinks I prefer heroin and midgets at midday; but no, BA-B was "guy I just met in a suit and tie". I'm just shaking his hand for the first time. I expect him to know perhaps my professional reputation, because I'm meeting with him in that capacity, but he somehow knows things I only tell my friends, and that is weird as all get-out.
First off: I see a big difference between a scenario involving actual human beings and a trusted friend, and one involving algorithms that are only trying to show you stuff you might want to buy.
Second: Let's look your non-creepy scenario and a legitimately creepy one:
Non-creepy
FoaF: Hey, thanks for meeting me for lunch. Our mutual acquaintance informed me you are a vegetarian, so I selected this restaurant which had lots of vegetarian-friendly options.
See? This is friendly and helpful. It's what nice people do when they meet each other for lunch, which is already a situation where you're opening yourself up to being around someone.
Ultra-creepy
FoaF: I hope you don't mind, but I just got back from India and I brought you a box of ultra-small condoms. $FRIEND told me that your have an below-average size penis and I figured it was hard to find condoms that fit in the States.
$FRIEND also told me you voted for the Green Party the last few elections, so I brought you some literature on how International Jewry control the banks and corporations which are poisoning us with chemtrails. Also, here is a book on disproving the Holocaust, since $FRIEND informed me that you didn't think it was possible that so many Jews could have died and you suspect they just made it up so they'd get sympathy instead of being scorned for their crimes against humanity.
See? That was way too much information that the friend-of-a-friend had about you.
-
@lettucemode said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you get a targeted ad on a site like Amazon, Amazon doesn't actually know anything about it. Amazon is like, "Hey Google, I'm serving up a webpage to this user here. Know anything about him? If so, wanna put an ad in there for me? I won't peek, promise" and then Google is like, "I know him, here you go" and then Amazon shows you the page. Amazon doesn't actually know what ad it's serving you, technically.
I did mention that it was just an unrelated site spying on me. This a) is not immediately apparent to the average user, and b) changes to an analogy where some guy is hiding in the bushes in the food court of the mall listening to me and Friend A with a clipboard and a pen (because that is more absurd than just sticking a mic there, but equally creepy).
Then, when I go to order my Foo the next visit, he walks by me again carrying a large billboard for Bar brand Foo.
-
@blakeyrat said:
On the contrary, I'd be pretty excited because if the guy in this business meeting has the same friend I do, that's probably going to help me make whatever deal I'm there to make.
But then what if it goes so well and he wants to become friends? Now you'e got to worry about all the things he's going to find out about you, like your birth date and your favorite flavor of ice cream and.. and what if he wants to visit your house? He'll find that you hang the toilet paper under instead of over.
No no no, better to just stay in the basement and play WoW.
-
@joe.edwards said:
...changes to an analogy where some guy is hiding in the bushes in the food court of the mall listening to me and Friend A with a clipboard and a pen (because that is more absurd than just sticking a mic there, but equally creepy).
I still don't see why you view Amazon or whoever as a "friend". It's a company, there to sell you stuff. They're passing along info about you because they want to sell you more stuff.
The weird thing is, I don't like people. I do my best to avoid people and I really value privacy. I have a handful of very close friends and relatives, and the rest of humanity can burn in Hell for all I care. Everywhere I go I'm surrounded by asshole tourists who I despise and the people are pressing in from all sides. And I even live in a fairly rural neighborhood, but it's still too crowded for me. I dream of having enough money to buy 100 acres and never having to see a neighbor from my own house ever again, but that will never happen.
And at the same time, I'm apparently less paranoid than a lot of the people on here. I hate people because they're trying to kill me with their ignorance and their bad taste and their insipid narcissism and their stupid fucking opinions.. what's your excuse? They want to sell you something?
-
@blakeyrat said:
I'm asking seriously. I want a scenario, rooted in reality, that explains how an ad server tracking your behavior harms you either physically or financially.
Nobody knows what data is actually gathered. A lot of it could be stored in countries with zero privacy laws, giving free hands to keep "personally identifiable" data. The profiling is most accurate when it's connected to actual persons. This also makes it the most valuable. It would even be valuable for government bodies. And money has no ethics, so to speak.
So, hypothetically:
CIA buys lists of people who googled for "bomb", "TNT", etc..
Iran buys lists of people who browsed Christian sites from within Iran.
A promoter club of <insert political agenda> buy incriminating/embarrassing data on <insert opposing party>.
Not that I have anything to hide. Just saying...
-
@blakeyrat said:
I'm asking seriously. I want a scenario, rooted in reality, that explains how an ad server tracking your behavior harms you either physically or financially.
Dynamic pricing. For example, if you're pulling up the price quote for an airline ticket after a week of shopping around, it can be higher than if you were pulling it up for the first time, hence why it's considered good advice to do comparison shopping in a separate incognito mode for each browser.
Plus as to something you said earlier, I've seen porn sites just throw up Google AdSense. Porn isn't a special magical thing separate from the rest of the web.
-
@MiffTheFox said:
Porn isn't a special magical thing...
You watch your mouth, you son of a bitch.
@MiffTheFox said:
...separate from the rest of the web.
Oh.
-
@blakeyrat said:
I'm asking seriously. I want a scenario, rooted in reality, that explains how an ad server tracking your behavior harms you either physically or financially.
It used to be that after every visit to Hack-a-day, I'd get "date arabic girls now" type of ads from every google ad banner. They fixed it since then, and now I get the infrared thermometer ads I guess I'm supposed to get from sites like that. And remember when TheDailyWTF served Scientology ads?
So there is the mental cost of having to see adverts for concepts like "Free IQ test", "Scientology", "Pokemon mouse pointers"...
And the social cost from my wife taking a look over my shoulder, seeing the "Date <unlikely-to-date-online group> girls for free now" ad, and asking what kind of sites I've been on, seeing as the ads try to reflect the sites we've been browsing.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
I agree that materialism sucks, but I'm always surprised when people try to blame society's obsession with material goods on advertising, marketing and business. They're just giving people what they demand. The root of the problem is
social and cultural.that stuff is awesome!FTFY. Unless you're a monk or living some other hermit-like life of intentional deprivation, you like to have stuff. More stuff is better, because it's more stuff. If you loudly proclaim otherwise, it's probably because you're not as good at getting more stuff as you'd like to be, and it's easier to say bad things about people good at getting stuff than it is to improve your stuff-getting ability.
-
@blakeyrat said:
Maybe I'd be able to imagine why if you just told me why
I'm not an anti-tracking kook like Lorne or El_heffe, but Lorne definitely told you about having purchases or browsing showing up in inappropriate ways. I got somewhat creeped out recently. I bought a raspberry pi from an outfit, and shortly thereafter, I was seeing ads for those guys everywhere. It was in gmail and on lots of random web pages.
There's obviously nothing inappropriate about getting ads for electronic components, but what if I had bought something of a more adult nature? Maybe I bought some wine, or cigars. Next, my young child gets on the computer and starts seeing this stuff. As you said, you can't track by person, so now they're targeting inappropriate stuff at my child.
tl;dr; Hi blakeyrat!
-
@blakeyrat said:
Am I the mutant because I don't think that's weird/uncomfortable at all?
No. You're the mutant because you cannot fathom that anyone has any preferences or hang ups different than your own. But this is normal for you. You simply lack empathy and imagination.
@blakeyrat said:
On the contrary, I'd be pretty excited because if the guy in this business meeting has the same friend I do, that's probably going to help me make whatever deal I'm there to make.
Yes, but wait until you learn that he likes his table columns sized differently! JIHAD!
-
@MiffTheFox said:
Yeah, but when you use the same browser across several computers, it gets hard to maintain the same Firefox between one's personal computer (dual-boot), laptop (dual-boot), shared computer, work computer, etc.
No, it really isn't hard. At least not if you use Sync.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@Lorne Kates said:
1) Advertising and marketing put an unhealthy emphasis on desiring and obtaining material posessions
I agree that materialism sucks, but I'm always surprised when people try to blame society's obsession with material goods on advertising, marketing and business. They're just giving people what they demand. The root of the problem is social and cultural.
What's the solution? You not participating isn't doing it, sorry to say.
Granted they aren't the only ones who are to blame. But they're the topic of discussion, and they're part of the problem.
My not participating is a drop in the bucket, but it's still a decision I've made. I lose out on their marketing, they lose out on my data. One of a billion datapoints, but still one.
In the short term, I can encourage others not to participate, argue against crass materialism, etc.
In the long term, it'll come as any societal change comes: with time, changing viewpoints and legislation. We managed to get rid of (for some values of "the world"), slavery, child labor, rampart poverty, unsafe vehicles, unchecked product safety, etc-- because as a society, people said that the harm wasn't worth the benefit. The difference here is that the harm is much quieter and almost invisible. There aren't children crushed to death by machines after working an 12 hour day. But there is this slow build of constant advertisement, the idea that you as a consumer should accept a complete lack of privacy. At some point, my hope is people will finally take on the attitude of "it's not okay" and adopt things like adblock and no 3rd party trackers by default. If advertising isn't profitable because the default is to not participate, then it won't be as pervasive.
-
@Lorne Kates said:
My not participating is a drop in the bucket,
But you are participating. You're taking money from Alex (that come from advertising on this site) in exchange for writing articles. You're just participating in a "I got mine, fuck everybody else" one-sided manner. You're either a hypocrite or a sociopath.
-
(Apologies for the quality of below, fucking CS lost the original post, retyping from memory):
@blakeyrat said:
@Lorne Kates said:
Tracking is done at more than the cookie level.
No it's not.
[url="http://panopticlick.eff.org/index.php?action=log&js=yes"]It's technically possible[/url], and you can bet that if all the tracking cookies vanished overnight, CDI like that would be adopted in a heartbreath (if they aren't already). That's why I block all 3rd party trackers, not just cookies. With JS disabled, I'm 1 in 5020. With it enabled, I'm unique.
@blakeyrat said:
@Lorne Kates said:
If you can't imagine why someone wouldn't want their browsing history and personal preferenes flashed on the screen when others might be watching or judging, then you live in a fantasy world.
Maybe I'd be able to imagine why if you just told me why.
People have. Stop being a fucking moron. Here, let me present you with a few real world scenarios:
1) Gay teen searches for support information. Ads for gay dating sites start appearing on his browser when his friends and family are near, outing him. He's thrown out of the house. His friends turn into bullies, who abuse him to the point of killing him or driving him to suicide.
2) A politician looks for some information that is contrary to her constiuent's beliefs. This information is then used to destroy her career and liveleyhood.
3) Someone out of curiosity looks for information about bombs and explosives. Maybe they're reasearching just how plausible it is to run from an explosion like they see in movies. It's cool information. That tracking data makes its way into a government database. They're suddenly barred from all public service and government jobs. They get harassed every time they try to cross the border or board an airplane.
4) Maybe something less begnin. I want to give my best gal a memorable, surprise proposal. Something really romantic to sweep her off her feet, like she's always dreamed. So I reasearch and buy a wedding ring and make my plans. But suddenly all my Facebook ads are for wedding planners, and wedding tux rentals, and diets to lose weight for my wedding. Hell, probably because of how closely linked our two accounts are, HER ads suddenly start showing those. My surprise is ruined, and rather than a grand romantic gesture that she'll remember for life, instead she's like "yeah, I know, Facebook told me".
5) Hell, even if we take your "targeted ads are better" arguement at face value-- let's say I'm in the market for a car. I do the initial searches-- where to buy a car, what financing do I need, etc. Now, whoever had the biggest advertising budget gets to shove biased ads in my face for their product. Let's say all I see are ads for the Fjord Fracas. Well, maybe the Hando Cricket was a better car. It got better mileage, was cheaper, had better safety ratings. But being a good consumer, I am swayed by the ads that are present to me for my own good. I buy an inferior product for more money and less safety. I lose.
Let me turn this on you, Blakey. You claim that third party trackers are good. Explain to me because I don't understand. I've talked to lots of people too, and no one's ever been able to explain to me why without resorting to greedily defending their own salary, or spouting fantasy about lower costs and better product information. EXPLAIN!
@blakeyrat said:
But Comcast doesn't monitor bandwidth.
[url="http://customer.comcast.com/help-and-support/internet/common-questions-excessive-use/"]Utter bull fucking bull shitty bullshit, you bullshit filled liar. [/url]
@blakeyrat said:
@Lorne Kates said:
And I'm saying that there is no implicit contract. None. It doesn't exist. It's a figment of your imagination. You cannot use it as a reason why I should accept trackers. I call it utter fucking shit and you are shit for even thinking that such a thing exists.
Don't you get paid by Alex for work on this site? How do you reconcile that with this opinion? If Alex stopped paying you, would you continue writing articles? Help me out here. How does your brain work where it can store these two things without self-destructing?
Way to avoid addressing my point. There is not such thing as an implicit contract. It's a fantasy construct you made up and has no bearing on reality, and thus is not a point for arguing for third party trackers. If there is an explicit contract not to block 3rd parties, fine. If it's enforced with technology, fine. But I can make up implicit contracts too. For me, the implicit contract is that I'm supporting their site by visiting, giving them another set of eyeballs to appreciate their creative content, and being a unique visitor to increase their popularity and pagerank. I'm helping them by making their site more popular, and thus increasing their value to advertisors. But I expect that they'll treat me with respect and not violate my privacy, and as such there is no need for third party trackers. I thought that was implicit when dealing with the public and people who you want to view your content. See, I can make implicit contracts to.
As to this site: yes, Alex pays me. It was a nice surprise, actually. When I first responded to the call for authors way back when, there was no mention of money, and I didn't apply expecting to be paid. I applied because I enjoy writing, I enjoy writing in the style of TheDailyWTF, and-- for lack of a better explaination-- I have to write. It's my creative outlet. I have to do it. If Alex called me up tomorrow and said "Hey, readership is down, the ads aren't paying as much as they used to, I can't afford to pay for bandwidth and authors"-- THEN I WOULD STILL DO THE WRITING. Because my primary concern is doing something creative that I enjoy. And if I didn't enjoy doing it, I would stop.
This may shock and surprise you, but people do creative things without the expectation of being paid for it-- because it is something they enjoy doing anyways. Fuck, what am I saying-- [url="http://www.youtube.com/user/RobotsInTheNews"]YOU SHOULD KNOW GODDAMN WELL THIS POINT![/url]
@blakeyrat said:
@Lorne Kates said:@blakeyrat said:
You do have a choice with the vast majority of sites.
Really? Which ones? Show me. I'm waiting.Here's Google's. Here's instructions on how to opt-out of Amazon's tracking. Here's Microsoft's.
Can I guarantee every site that tracks its users has an opt-out feature? No. There are millions of sites.
1) So your "vast majority" is bullshit.
2) Those are sites, not ad networks. Except for Google's doubleclick. But even so
3) Those are half-hearted bullshit attempts to appease regulators. I have to accept a cookie, and maintain that cookie (don't let it expire, don't delete it, make sure it's regenerated on every computer and every browser). Or I have to create an account. In both cases, they don't say that my information won't be collected. They don't say they won't use the information they get or already have. They don't say they won't resell the information. They don't say any of that. They still track, and still use the data. "If you want to stop getting punched, just put your hands in front of your face. If you ever drop your hands, we punch you. We also punch your kidneys anyways. Also, we hire other people to punch you".
So by providing this opt out, is that not an IMPLICT CONTRACT that states that it's okay for me to not be tracked by them. And if so, then what's the different between using their opt out, and just blocking their trackets wholesale?
@blakeyrat said:
Nobody's saying you need ads.
That seems to be the crux of your arguments. Without ads, people won't hear about products, you'll be homeless, and every website on the internet would go out of business.
-
@blakeyrat said:
Ok. Slow down buddy. Let's talk this out.
You go to a restaurant with friend B. He orders crab salad for you, which is your favorite. He explains he learned about your favorite food from friend A.
Why does that make you uncomfortable? I want you to explain what exactly is uncomfortable about that situation.
I go to a restuarant and I'm given a menu. The menu has different items on it that my companion's. I ask the waiter why, and he tells me because they've had a shady guy following me while I ate, and has been taking notes about the sort of foods I buy and lifestyle I live. They noticed I once went into a gunshot, so all what's available is venison, tortured baby cow, and the house salad. The house salad is on everyone's menu, because it has the highest profit margin.
My companion starts to get uneasy. She didn't know I liked guns. I don't, it was research for a book I'm writing. I needed to know if a certain model had a safety or not, and how it felt to hold. The owner was actually very nice. He had lots of free time to help since he gets paid to let shady people hang out in his store and take notes on people. Oh, I see.
I look at her menu and notice there's only one item that overlaps. The house salad, of course. But wait, how come my salad is more expensive than hers?
Well, the shady guy noticed that I drove a better car than her, I work at a better job than her, and when I buy cookies, I buy Oreo instead of the house brand Oreofaux, which she buys. She also buys the house-brand vaginal cream instead of the Johnson and Johnson one, so watch out for those maintenance issue.
While she gets flustered, I notice all of her menu options are vegan. What the hell's up with that? Oh, the shady guy following her noticed she accepted the pamphlet from the hairy-woman three blocks down for PETA. Really, PETA? Well, she took the pamphlet to be nice, but it does have some intriguiging ideas in it.
And now you see why tracking is harmful? Because now that I know she's PETA friendly, I'm going to have no option left but to go back to the gun store, buy a hand gun, then come back and shoot her in the head. It's the only way to cull the PETA herd and keep their crazy from spreading across the globe.
Great job getting an innocent, slutty girl killed, Blakey. Good job.
-
@Lorne Kates said:
@blakeyrat said:
Ok. Slow down buddy. Let's talk this out.
You go to a restaurant with friend B. He orders crab salad for you, which is your favorite. He explains he learned about your favorite food from friend A.
Why does that make you uncomfortable? I want you to explain what exactly is uncomfortable about that situation.
I go to a restuarant and I'm given a menu. The menu has different items on it that my companion's. I ask the waiter why, and he tells me because they've had a shady guy following me while I ate, and has been taking notes about the sort of foods I buy and lifestyle I live. They noticed I once went into a gunshot, so all what's available is venison, tortured baby cow, and the house salad. The house salad is on everyone's menu, because it has the highest profit margin.
My companion starts to get uneasy. She didn't know I liked guns. I don't, it was research for a book I'm writing. I needed to know if a certain model had a safety or not, and how it felt to hold. The owner was actually very nice. He had lots of free time to help since he gets paid to let shady people hang out in his store and take notes on people. Oh, I see.
I look at her menu and notice there's only one item that overlaps. The house salad, of course. But wait, how come my salad is more expensive than hers?
Well, the shady guy noticed that I drove a better car than her, I work at a better job than her, and when I buy cookies, I buy Oreo instead of the house brand Oreofaux, which she buys. She also buys the house-brand vaginal cream instead of the Johnson and Johnson one, so watch out for those maintenance issue.
While she gets flustered, I notice all of her menu options are vegan. What the hell's up with that? Oh, the shady guy following her noticed she accepted the pamphlet from the hairy-woman three blocks down for PETA. Really, PETA? Well, she took the pamphlet to be nice, but it does have some intriguiging ideas in it.
And now you see why tracking is harmful? Because now that I know she's PETA friendly, I'm going to have no option left but to go back to the gun store, buy a hand gun, then come back and shoot her in the head. It's the only way to cull the PETA herd and keep their crazy from spreading across the globe.
Great job getting an innocent, slutty girl killed, Blakey. Good job.
I'm just going to quote this because it's awesome.
-
@Lorne Kates said:
It's technically possible,
So is setting off a hydrogen bomb in an orphanage. But that doesn't happen either.
@Lorne Kates said:
As to this site: yes, Alex pays me. It was a nice surprise, actually. When I first responded to the call for authors way back when, there was no mention of money, and I didn't apply expecting to be paid. I applied because I enjoy writing, I enjoy writing in the style of TheDailyWTF, and-- for lack of a better explaination-- I have to write. It's my creative outlet. I have to do it. If Alex called me up tomorrow and said "Hey, readership is down, the ads aren't paying as much as they used to, I can't afford to pay for bandwidth and authors"-- THEN I WOULD STILL DO THE WRITING. Because my primary concern is doing something creative that I enjoy. And if I didn't enjoy doing it, I would stop.
But as long as you accept that money, you're participating in the marketing system. So don't lie and tell us you're not. (Or if you do at least show a slight amount of self-awareness and bring up how much of a hypocrite you are.)
You can't have your cake and eat it.
@Lorne Kates said:
This may shock and surprise you, but people do creative things without the expectation of being paid for it-- because it is something they enjoy doing anyways. Fuck, what am I saying-- YOU SHOULD KNOW GODDAMN WELL THIS POINT!
The difference between the two scenarios is that while we're both willing to work on creative endeavors without getting paid, I'm the only one of us actually doing that. Woo. Moral superiority to me.
@Lorne Kates said:
1) So your "vast majority" is bullshit.
No it's not. It's a requirement for all sites that use... whatever Facebook calls Atlas now or DoubleClick, which are the two largest ad exchanges by far. Right there that's something like 85-90% of all sites that use tracking cookies.
@Lorne Kates said:
2) Those are sites, not ad networks. Except for Google's doubleclick. But even so
The sites use the ad networks, dumbass. If you tell Microsoft not to track cookies, it won't send those cookies TO THE AD NETWORK. That is what that does.
Can you learn SOMETHING about the industry before you decry it? This is getting ridiculous. "I vehemently oppose the building of cars because they set off hydrogen bombs in orphanages to get tires!" "No they don't." "But ... bomb tires! BOMB TIRES!"
@Lorne Kates said:
That seems to be the crux of your arguments.
Then you have understood nothing I've written.
-
@Lorne Kates said:
Great job getting an innocent, slutty girl killed, Blakey.
This seems like a bit of a leap of faith, given the rest of the article. Are we to assume she's slutty because she agreed to go to a restaurant with you (does "companion" imply "date)? Maybe I just don't fully comprehend your strange northern dialect. I'll get the spies to start learning the ins and outs of your speechifying immediately.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@too_many_usernames said:
The old patronage model does work for certain activities.
So you're suggesting the solution to ads is that the only entertainment we should get is what the super-wealthy decide to fund and then offer to us for free?
Arg, I'm sick of this whole line of thought. "The only way people will create is if they're paid, and the only way to get paid is via ads".
The whole argument is completely false! People created long before they were paid, created while they were being paid, and will create when they aren't being paid.
The most financially successful creators these days are the ones who:
1) Create a good product because they want to
2) Get people to enjoy the content
3) Get those people to spread the word
4) Repeat 2-3 as much as needed
5) Get money from those people
#5 is not that hard. You can do it via ads, sure. But you can sell merchandise. Tour and charge for appearances. Create a subscription model with added features for subscribers ranging from ads-free to bonus content to warm-fuzzies.
Fuck, if you're popular enough, you can just plain fucking ASK people to give you money, and [url="http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/pennyarcade/penny-arcade-sells-out"]raise half a million dollars[/url], enough to pay yourself, your employees, rent an office and still have enough left over to create extra material, remove ads and PRODUCE A GODDAMN REALITY SHOW!
Creative people don't get special treatment in business because they're making a creative product. If you're going to make a living off of it, you have to treat it like a business. This means:
1) You TREAT IT LIKE A FUCKING BUSINESS! You create a product. You get customers. You sell the product to the customers. The comic/song/website itself MIGHT NOT BE THE PRODUCT!
2) You accept the reality that you may fail. People might not want your product. They might not want the product at the price or by the terms you are offering it. They have no obligation to be your customers
3) You accept the reality of the market you enter. If you want people to pay you in advance, you put up a paywall, or a donation drive to make the product, or get a patron. If you want to be paid by choice after consumption, then you put it up for the public to consume and accept payment afterwards. You weight the pros and cons of each business strategy, and you execute it. Your paywall may not get enough subscribers to support you. Your public presentation may not get enough coins tossed in your hat. That's the risk of business!
4) You decide what's your exit point, and your exit strategy. If you don't succeed as a buisness, do you continue to produce as a hobbyist? If not, then why were you doing this in the first place? It's a horrible, shitty way to make a living that few succeed at. Why did you assume you'd be one of the few? What did you do wrong?
That's the reality of making a living. Fuck, if over the next 5 years AI was advanced to the point where there was a program that instantly translated Manager Speak (I want a red website that sells French Horns and it should have pizzaz, like Amazon.com) into fully functional websites, then I'd be obsolete. It'd be foolish of me to EXEPECT my profession to not fundimentally change, possibly to my detriment. It's called reality.
-
@boomzilla said:
@Lorne Kates said:
Great job getting an innocent, slutty girl killed, Blakey.
This seems like a bit of a leap of faith, given the rest of the article. Are we to assume she's slutty because she agreed to go to a restaurant with you (does "companion" imply "date)? Maybe I just don't fully comprehend your strange northern dialect. I'll get the spies to start learning the ins and outs of your speechifying immediately.
Why else would she need that cream?
-
@Lorne Kates said:
1) You TREAT IT LIKE A FUCKING BUSINESS! You create a product. You get customers. You sell the product to the customers. The comic/song/website itself MIGHT NOT BE THE PRODUCT!
But a business with no marketing department. Because marketing is a no-no!
-
@blakeyrat said:
But as long as you accept that money, you're participating in the marketing system. So don't lie and tell us you're not. (Or if you do at least show a slight amount of self-awareness and bring up how much of a hypocrite you are.)
Or I'm participating the Inedo system. Or I'm participating the Alex's Hobby system. But nice try.
@blakeyrat said:
The sites use the ad networks, dumbass. If you tell Microsoft not to track cookies, it won't send those cookies TO THE AD NETWORK. That is what that does.
Won't send cookies-- to ad networks-- ah-- do you have any idea how a cookie works? Or what 3rd party means?
@blakeyrat said:
@Lorne Kates said:
This may shock and surprise you, but people do creative things without the expectation of being paid for it-- because it is something they enjoy doing anyways. Fuck, what am I saying-- YOU SHOULD KNOW GODDAMN WELL THIS POINT!
The difference between the two scenarios is that while we're both willing to work on creative endeavors without getting paid, I'm the only one of us actually doing that. Woo. Moral superiority to me.
Oh, I see your point. Because I signed up with TheDailyWTF to get paid and would stop writing if I stopped getting paid.
Hmm, no, wait, that's exactly the opposite of what I said. Are you listening to shoulder aliens again, Blakey?
@blakeyrat said:
@Lorne Kates said:
It's technically possible,
So is setting off a hydrogen bomb in an orphanage. But that doesn't happen either.
Oh, I see your point. Because a tracking entity using a proven tracking technology to accomplish the goal of tracking users is the same thing as the tracking company going on a murder spree on Broadway to get Cats and Rent shut down. I... wait, agian, no that doesn't make any sense.
Are your aliens from this solar system or another?
Well, we've reached the point where I've proven my point time and time again, and you've covered your ears and went "I DO NOT ACCEPT!" It was fun, time to go back to making fun of Go.
-
Wait a fucking minute...
@Lorne Kates said:
Fuck, if you're popular enough, you can just plain fucking ASK people to give you money,
You're not allowed to buy ad space on websites, but you are allowed to fucking cold-call hundreds of people begging for money? This is the world you want? I don't get banner ads, but I get cold-calls from every fucking website I've ever visited? Jesus.
-
@Lorne Kates said:
Oh, I see your point. Because I signed up with TheDailyWTF to get paid and would stop writing if I stopped getting paid.
Hmm, no, wait, that's exactly the opposite of what I said. Are you listening to shoulder aliens again, Blakey?
No I'm saying WHILE you're getting paid you have no moral ground to tell me, "I would do the same thing with no pay."
A lot of people say they would run into a burning building to rescue a cat, very few people actually do that.
Or in the immortal (paraphrased) words of The Mighty Mighty Bosstones: "you're not a coward, you've just never been tested. You like to think if you'd had you'd have passed."
If you stop taking payment from ad revenue, maybe I can take you a bit more seriously. But at the very least, don't sit here and blatantly lie at us by saying you don't participate. You liar.
-
@blakeyrat said:
@Lorne Kates said:
1) You TREAT IT LIKE A FUCKING BUSINESS! You create a product. You get customers. You sell the product to the customers. The comic/song/website itself MIGHT NOT BE THE PRODUCT!
But a business with no marketing department. Because marketing is a no-no!
Please quote me where I said that.
I have absolutely not problem with people collecting first party data. If I go to a website, especially an account driven one-- fuck, yeah, people are going to collect that data. It's a fundimental part of how the Internet works.
And I fully expect marketing. I've tried a demo of BuildMaster becauae Alex does a good job of marketing it-- by creating TheDailyWTF to gather together like-minded people who are technically inclined, creating a good product, then just putting out there and saying "Here it is". No billboards blocking up the lakeshore. No flashing supermodels. No being called a criminal for not reading the Buildmaster articles.
I own every book [url="http://schlockmercenary.com"]Howard Tayler[/url] has put out. Hell, I jumped at the chance to appear at Penguicon two years ago SPECIFICALLY so I could meet him, buy the latest book, and get it autographed. (Oh yeah, there was this Alex guy too. I don't remember much about him. He gave me a mug). I just linked to him. I'm marketing him. I think you should read his comic because it's very good. If think you should decide for yourself if you want to buy his merch.
There's a huge fucking difference between a business marketing itself. Too lazy to scroll up, but I think it was joe.edwards who made the same point. If you're on a business' website, then by all means you're pretty much expecting them to market themselves. That's the entire point of a business' website. The ones good at marketing just do a better job at it than just throwing up a flashing banner.
My problem is with third party trackers. Their business IS tracking and advertising. That is their product, and the only reason the product exists is for the product to exist. They serve no useful purpose to anyone other than themselves. They're parasites feeding off the rest of society. The site I'm on has no business knowing anything about me outside of my interaction with them. If I go to Dildos.com and pick the Purple Destroyer, then by all means the next time I visit Dildo.com, I expect to see reccomendations for ass calming balm (purple), the Purple Double-Down Ass and Mouth Raper and house salad.
I don't expect any of that to appear anywhere outside of Dildo.com. Except here. Because of this post. I-- I've done horrible things to Alex's analytics.
If you cannot fathom the difference between first party marketing and intrusive third party tracking, then maybe you don't know your industry as well as I thought you did.
-
@Lorne Kates said:
@boomzilla said:
@Lorne Kates said:
Great job getting an innocent, slutty girl killed, Blakey.
This seems like a bit of a leap of faith, given the rest of the article. Are we to assume she's slutty because she agreed to go to a restaurant with you (does "companion" imply "date)? Maybe I just don't fully comprehend your strange northern dialect. I'll get the spies to start learning the ins and outs of your speechifying immediately.Why else would she need that cream?
Oh, I guess that's a fair inference. I just assumed she was less than diligent in cleaning her purple dildo, but your idea makes sense, too.
-
(FUCKING CS!)
@blakeyrat said:
No I'm saying WHILE you're getting paid you have no moral ground to tell me, "I would do the same thing with no pay."
And you have no basis to know me well enough to judge what I would do.
[url="http://bloodlust-uk.com/?p=326"]I've published for free[/url] before. I've appeared at conventions (for both TheDailyWTF and my own creative endevours) on my own dime because it's fun and I enjoy doing it.
@blakeyrat said:
Or in the immortal (paraphrased) words of The Mighty Mighty Bosstones: "you're not a coward, you've just never been tested. You like to think if you'd had you'd have passed."
Song quotes. Gotcha, 14 year old girl with a spiral notebook mode it is.
I'll leave you with the immortal words of the first line of the next song on my random playlist, in the form of a pretentious image based off the first free result I got back for "house salad":
-
@blakeyrat said:
Wait a fucking minute...
@Lorne Kates said:
Fuck, if you're popular enough, you can just plain fucking ASK people to give you money,
You're not allowed to buy ad space on websites, but you are allowed to fucking cold-call hundreds of people begging for money? This is the world you want? I don't get banner ads, but I get cold-calls from every fucking website I've ever visited? Jesus.
I see your point. I was definitely advocating a creator cold-calling his fans. That was certainly directly and verbatim in the text that I put up, and was almost certainly implied by my hyperlink to Penny Arcade's kickstarter.
Damn, Blakey, you sure now how to read.
-
Besides, if you even thought to check the source for TDWTF you'd see that they use first-party advertisements, not a third-party ad network like Google.
-
@MiffTheFox said:
Besides, if you even thought to check the source for TDWTF you'd see that they use first-party advertisements, not a third-party ad network like Google.
Ever since Alex got fed with the Scientology and Pokemon cursor ads. He even made an article detailing his reasoning for the change. We now have the privilege of enjoying advertisements hand-picked for the site.
And I got to hand it to him, the guy knows how to pick his ads. Not a single one has struck my eye as having nothing to do with the trade.
-
@OldCrow said:
advertisements hand-picked for the site.
Which basically boils down to "Inedo advertisements".
-
@OldCrow said:
@MiffTheFox said:
Besides, if you even thought to check the source for TDWTF you'd see that they use first-party advertisements, not a third-party ad network like Google.
Ever since Alex got fed with the Scientology and Pokemon cursor ads. He even made an article detailing his reasoning for the change. We now have the privilege of enjoying advertisements hand-picked for the site.
And I got to hand it to him, the guy knows how to pick his ads. Not a single one has struck my eye as having nothing to do with the trade.
Does anyone else miss Irish girl?
-
But Scientology is all about technology!
-
-
@blakeyrat said:
But Scientology is all about technology!
Is it? Wictionary says ... well, color me surprised, that's actually correct. Technology, noun, "The study of or a collection of techniques."...is the part that I guess applies here. And since Scientology is all about applied psychology, which is technically a collection of techniques, it is all about technology.
However, it is still not exactly about IT. I mean, even grass-growing as a science can develop technology (as in techniques) for, well, growing grass. But I don't think too many here would be interested in that either.
-
@OldCrow said:
@blakeyrat said:
But Scientology is all about technology!
Is it? Wictionary says ... well, color me surprised, that's actually correct. Technology, noun, "The study of or a collection of techniques."...is the part that I guess applies here. And since Scientology is all about applied psychology, which is technically a collection of techniques, it is all about technology.
However, it is still not exactly about IT. I mean, even grass-growing as a science can develop technology (as in techniques) for, well, growing grass. But I don't think too many here would be interested in that either.
Well, Scientology has e-meters and spaceships and shit, plus whatever technology is containing the sexual tension between John Travolta and Tom Cruise.
-
Scientology calls their scripture "the tech", and has a program for "preservation of the tech". (Meaning: they inscribe Battlefield: Earth and all other L Ron Hubbard works to gold plates and bury them underground somewhere.)
-
-
I would be immensely happy if we could get a donation-based economy working. Something like Flattr, but on a larger scale. You spend 30% of the time on TDWTF? A similar percentage of your "donation money" automatically goes there.
After all, advertisements could be considered small involuntary donations. So just skip the middlemen and let money go straight to the the end-user.
Yeah, most of the internet content is probably not created for profit, but it's still nice to have the "paid content".
-
@spamcourt said:
I would be immensely happy if we could get a donation-based economy working. Something like Flattr, but on a larger scale. You spend 30% of the time on TDWTF? A similar percentage of your "donation money" automatically goes there.
After all, advertisements could be considered small involuntary donations. So just skip the middlemen and let money go straight to the the end-user.
You're just talking about micro-payments, which I would greatly prefer to ads, but nobody's ever made them work right. Still, most of the people blocking ads aren't simply anti-ad, they're anti-giving-content-creators-anything-for-their-work.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
You're just talking about micro-payments, which I would greatly prefer to ads, but nobody's ever made them work right.
I actually like Spamcourt's idea.
1) Make one large payment into an account. Say $100.
2) Somehow determine which sites you like the most, and give them a % value*
3) Your $100 is broken up by that % and distributed accordingly.**
Ideally, the content creators will receive one large payment that's the aggregate of all the payments made to them that month/quarter/whatever.
It's a great idea, except for the person running the Thankyou site. Because either they need to take a cut of all the payments or, most likely and most ironically, will make their money by being a de facto third party tracker collecting browsing and usage stats of a wide range of people.
* would be neat to have a browser plugin that just tallies up your time on each site, allows you to pick which ones you're paying for and maybe even assign a co-efficent to them, then autocalculate that in the end.
** would also be nice if the content creators didn't have to sign up for this service, and just got notified they have a check waiting for them. But this opens up all sorts of avenues for what happens with lost/unclaimed funds. Do they get put in escrow? Returned to the sender? What about the interest? Also, it creates a huge phishing target.
@morbiuswilters said:
Still, most of the people blocking ads aren't simply anti-ad, they're anti-giving-content-creators-anything-for-their-work.
Imma gonna throw a hearty "fucking prove it" on that one. I would be foolish to say the majority are altruistic and only concerned about privay and security, but I think it's more of a bell curve. The total "no support info must be free" people are a minority on one side, and the "only for privacy and security here's a check" are on the other. The middle is mostly people who just genuinely hate ads for whatever reason, and would support the content creators if they could (or they do).
And honestly, the people who aren't going to pay never will-- and short of paywalling your site or releasing some TOS that opens a legal avenue, there is zero you can do about it. It's the reality of putting content on the Internet and having a publically accessible website. We've all argued this on both sides before.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
You're just talking about micro-payments, which I would greatly prefer to ads, but nobody's ever made them work right. Still, most of the people blocking ads aren't simply anti-ad, they're anti-giving-content-creators-anything-for-their-work.
