Epic context menu
-
What people say is not the same as what people do.
-
@Lorne Kates said:
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.
You're just talking about micro-payments, which I would greatly prefer to ads, but nobody's ever made them work right.
@Lorne Kates said:
* 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.
And this would not immediately be abused by every single person who installs ad-blockers or downloads pirated content. Unless there's some sort of cryptographically-secure transaction going on with the browser which debits a certain amount from some account, you're just going off the honor system, and a lot of sites already have tip jars. Plus, you'd need a decent install base of browsers to make it work, and you know it's going to fragment in 20 different standards for processing micro-payments because Google won't like Microsoft's way so they'll make their own and Apple will decide they need an Apple-only solution that ties in with the App Store..
Then you have to consider the damage this would do to most content creator's bottom line. If I have to pay ten cents every time I open an article at the New York Slimes, I'm never going to do it. If they show ads, they'll get more people to come and will actually make more money off of them.
@Lorne Kates said:
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).
They already have the option of supporting the content creators. It costs them less than it would if they had to pay micro-payments, but they're so entitled they don't feel they should have to see a banner ad lest it somehow corrupt their precious web browsing experience. I hate ads, but I also realize it's unethical for me to take content from creators and not help them in return. It's the selfish, me-first kind of attitude held by someone who goes to a picnic, realizes there's only enough beer for each person to have one, and so grabs a six-pack and hordes it for himself. Sure, I wish I could have more than one beer, but I don't like feeling like I'm using and cheating people.
And the truth is, most people are blocking ads for precisely these selfish, me-first reasons; not security, not some legitimate fear they might be tracked and targeted or hurt. They just don't like ads and they feel that they are entitled to the fruits of someone else's labor without giving anything in return. That's an incredibly sleazy attitude and it shocks me that you can say you block ads in polite company (if TDWTF counts as polite company) and not have people walk away from you in disgust.
@Lorne Kates said:
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.
You'd hope that as a society we'd be beyond having to worry about things like petty theft, but there ya go, it's a reality. And the only way your pay system you proposed would work is if it's a paywall--otherwise, as I said, it's on the honor system which means Alex ends up sleeping in a cardboard box. And not one of those fancy refrigerator boxes, I'm thinking more of a cereal box or something.. honestly, he'd just be better off sleeping on the ground, but I'm not going to tell him he can't wear Cheerios boxes on his feet.
@Lorne Kates said:
It's the reality of putting content on the Internet and having a publically accessible website.
And the reality of putting a grill on your back porch is someone might drive away with it. People are shitty. But only one of us is arguing we should accept (and even admire) such anti-social behavior as some kind of reasonable, principled stance.
-
@MiffTheFox said:
That's not what most of the people blocking ads say.
And go to any jail in the US and most people there will tell you they didn't do it. Why the fuck should I care about the (sometimes elaborate) rationalizations that thieves come up with to justify their actions?
Also, most of those reasons are stupid. "Distracting ad content"? What, are you descended from raccoons and can't read an article if there's a banner anywhere on the page? Besides, most of the actually crazy banners I see are either on porn sites or torrent sites. Ads on mainstream sites are pretty subdued, for the most part.
"Offensive or inappropriate ad content"? Yeah, I'm sure the guys stealing content and visiting porn and torrent sites are angels.
"Better bandwidth usage": First off, how shitty is your Internet connection if you can't load a few K of ads? Second, how is this an argument??? It's like saying that shoplifting is reasonable because it saves wear-and-tear on your wallet from having to open it all the time. What the fuck?
"Privacy/security": So shoplifting is also okay because credit card companies might track what you buy? (Also, you're being tracked much more thoroughly at the checkout than you are online, unless you only pay in cash.)
Seriously, most of the popular answers equate to "I don't wanna. Now gimme gimme gimme!!" It's bullshit. How can people defend such unethical behavior?
-
@morbiuswilters said:
You're just talking aboutmicro-payments, which I would greatly prefer to ads, but nobody's ever made them work right.
Yes, there's a reason for that.http://www.openp2p.com/pub/a/p2p/2000/12/19/micropayments.html
http://cpe.ku.ac.th/~mcs/courses/2005_02/214573/papers/micropayments.pdf
-
@El_Heffe said:
@morbiuswilters said:
You're just talking aboutmicro-payments, which I would greatly prefer to ads, but nobody's ever made them work right.
Yes, there's a reason for that.http://www.openp2p.com/pub/a/p2p/2000/12/19/micropayments.html
http://cpe.ku.ac.th/~mcs/courses/2005_02/214573/papers/micropayments.pdf
Yeah, that's why I said "nobody's made them work right" a few times. I do think it's do-able, but it would require a lot of things going just right.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
It's bullshit. How can people defend such unethical behavior?
Probably the same way Google defends letting ad buyers put whatever the fuck they want in instead of limiting them to static images and text. Remember when Google said their ads would be different because they'd only be text-based? My how times have changed. :(
-
@Morbs2Me said:
Blah
Well, I disagree with pretty much everything you said. I don't buy your pessimistic definition of "ethical" or "stealing". We've had this discussion before bringing up the exact points. I don't think it's worth repeating.
But since you replied to someone else, I fuck at you:
@morbiuswilters said:
"Distracting ad content"? What, are you descended from raccoons and can't read an article if there's a banner anywhere on the page? Besides, most of the actually crazy banners I see are either on porn sites or torrent sites. Ads on mainstream sites are pretty subdued, for the most part.
Except for the flashing and moving ones. Or the popup-grey-out the screen ones. Or the interesetional ones between page loads. Or the ones with sound. Or the Flash based ones that steal focus. Or the ones in a completely different color scheme from the rest of the site. Or the ones that insert themselves into the content of the page. Or the ones that create faux hyperlinks that popup huge, non-dismissable tooltips when you accidentally hover over them. Or the ones that delay the content loading (by seconds for webpage ads, for 30-90 seconds on videos). Or those that reposition content, especially if there's a load delay and you're halfway through reading it.
@morbiuswilters said:
"Offensive or inappropriate ad content"? Yeah, I'm sure the guys stealing content and visiting porn and torrent sites are angels.
LOSE WEIGHT! TRim your BELLY! Secrets that YOUR DOCTOR doesn't want you to know! Find someone to "Date" in (geolocation)! This FINANCE Wizard has the secrets that's making WALLSTREET MAD! Got debt-- want more?
Financial scams, lies, debt peddlers, diet vultures-- all these ads are highly offensive and innapproritate. I don't know what sort of quasi-legal loopholes these sorts of businesses use to avoid being arrested outright, but their very existence is offensive. Say whatever you want about the effectiveness of constantly showing me the Fjord FU150 truck-- but these parasites and cancers? There is absoultely zero chance I would ever even think about using any of them. And NO ONE ELSE SHOULD EITHER! This isn't a matter of product opinion. This is a fact. NO ONE should fork over money to a shyster, a hustler, a liar, a thief. And shame on any website owner who profits off them-- because they're profiting off ACTUALLY harming their readers.
"Hey readers, when you come to read my site, make sure you buy from Pre-Teen Rapers. Sure they rape pre-teens, but they pay $0.10 per impression, and that's money you're stealing from my pocket. I deserve to make a profit, even if it harms all y'all. And while you're at it, make sure to try out their product. Your litle sister will love their balloon animals. And by that I mean their penises. And by love I mean will probably die painfully form internal bleeding."
@morbiuswilters said:
"Better bandwidth usage": First off, how shitty is your Internet connection if you can't load a few K of ads? Second, how is this an argument??? It's like saying that shoplifting is reasonable because it saves wear-and-tear on your wallet from having to open it all the time. What the fuck?
You're the one who argued that Firefox sucks becuase of a 3 second lag in opening a new tab. That's the threshold I use to call bullshit on your arguments.
And if you're on a metered connection (especially a portable one)-- like just about all the internet connections are in the digital backwater known as American Data Plans-- you literally pay for every MB the ads use up.
Hell, take a free vs. paid app for example. It's actually more expensive in more cases to run the free app because of factors like [url="http://www.howtogeek.com/141159/htg-explains-why-free-ad-supported-apps-may-be-more-expensive-than-paid-apps/"]the bandwidth used to serve the ads, vs the $5 the app costs[/url].
@morbiuswilters said:
"Privacy/security": So shoplifting is also okay because credit card companies might track what you buy? (Also, you're being tracked much more thoroughly at the checkout than you are online, unless you only pay in cash.)
Adblocking != shoplifting. If you want to go the flawed retail store analogy, the best would be somehow getting the Loyalty Card Discount without actually using the Loyalty Card.
You've already heard all my privacy arguments. You already know that [url="http://blog.armorize.com/2010/12/hdd-plus-malware-spread-through.html"]ads get spread through major, otherwise trustworthy ad networks[/url] time and time again.
@morbiuswilters said:
Seriously, most of the popular answers equate to "I don't wanna. Now gimme gimme gimme!!" It's bullshit. How can people defend such unethical behavior?
Because only a small, angry minority of uninformed people concider it "unethical". Most people, even content creators and advertisers, realize that [url="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100306/1649198451.shtml"]ads create a negative experience for all parties involved[/url]
Summary of that article: Ars Techna intentionally put in industry standard but annoying ads. Readers reacted very badly to both them AND the sponsor. AT killed the deal even though it was worth lots of money. On the other hand, their vidoes with useful content and zero annoying ads were successful, even though they were explicitly sponsored by UPS. In fact, UPS got THANKED by readers for producing those videos. Article ends with Ars Techna saying 'go ahead and block annoying ads, because if they're annoying, the advertisers have failed and we've failed."
-
I block pretty much everything in my primary browser: cookies (including first-party cookies unless I'm explicitly planning to log in to a website), arbitrary elements via an ad blocker, JavaScript (on a whitelist, hi Community Server)… (Flash isn't even installed in that browser, I use a separate browser on the rare occasions I need it). This is mostly in an attempt to stop badly-coded sites breaking basic functionality; the vast majority of sites just work generically better with JavaScript turned off (typically, more responsive with no apparent drawbacks).
The clearest response I can give to why blocking tracking cookies benefits me is "because people go to the effort of collecting this data, it must be valuable", followed by a desire to not give something, in general, to people for free if they're willing to pay for it. (I've heard that there are, in fact, websites you can sell your own personal data to, for a not-insignificant but also not-particularly-large sum of money.) My approach to ad blocking is, if a site requests me not to use an ad blocker, I simply won't use the site at all. (This means that sites that are fine with me blocking ads are more likely to have me see their ads, when I'm using a borrowed computer or the like. Likewise, I block ads from TDWTF's main site, but not from its RSS feed reader; so I do see the ads, just only once each, given that there's little chance of me following the ad once I've already disregarded it as irrelevant (so far, I haven't seen an ad for something I care about). I hope this is a compromise Alex is fine with. So far they have a 0% rate of actual relevance, and I've only clicked on them by mistake, so I guess showing me ads is effectively defrauding the ad networks, but meh. But then, I'm a fan of the funding model for websites of "actually, most of the websites I care about are rather specialised, labours of love and pretty cheap to run, and it's easier all round for the site owner to pay for them, rather than trying to organize money changing hands, because the price of running a website is insignificant nowadays". It doesn't work for everything, but for someone who uses the Web as infrequently as I do, it's reasonable.)
Incidentally, I've toyed with the idea of writing a Firefox extension which, instead of blocking cookies, simply replaces their content at random on every page view. Not particularly for the purpose of confusing tracking; rather, simply because based on what we see at TDWTF every day, it seems reasonable that the results would be amusing.
-
@MiffTheFox said:
Remember when Google said their ads would be different because they'd only be text-based?
No.
Because they didn't.
-
@Lorne Kates said:
But since you replied to someone else, I fuck at you:
You... what? Are you time-displaced Mr Spock trying to swear?
@Lorne Kates said:
Except for the flashing and moving ones. Or the popup-grey-out the screen ones. Or the interesetional ones between page loads. Or the ones with sound. Or the Flash based ones that steal focus. Or the ones in a completely different color scheme from the rest of the site. Or the ones that insert themselves into the content of the page. Or the ones that create faux hyperlinks that popup huge, non-dismissable tooltips when you accidentally hover over them. Or the ones that delay the content loading (by seconds for webpage ads, for 30-90 seconds on videos). Or those that reposition content, especially if there's a load delay and you're halfway through reading it.
The ads come with the content. If you don't like the ads, don't read the content. That's the only way to send the message to the publisher: "hey your ads are ineffective."
If you block the ads but read the content anyway, the only message the publisher gets is: "this guy is a fucking asshole freeloader."
If your goal is to reduce the number of those ads, your best strategy would be to turn off the ad blocker, but avoid sites that use those ads. What you're doing now isn't helping anybody-- not the publisher, not yourself.
This is another case of, "figure out what the fuck you want, then act on that."
@Lorne Kates said:
Financial scams, lies, debt peddlers, diet vultures-- all these ads are highly offensive
Seriously? Offensive? HIGHLY offensive? Yet you post on a forum where dicknugget is practically the highest compliment, and you're perfectly ok with that?
So let's clarify:
"lose weight in 30 days!" - offensive, block
"fuck your mom with a purple dildo you piece of human excrement" - not offensive, post thousands of words to this site@Lorne Kates said:
like just about all the internet connections are in the digital backwater known as American Data Plans-- you literally pay for every MB the ads use up.
What carrier in America does this? I don't know of any who charge in blocks of less than 1 GB.
After exiting the time-pod, you may want to spend some time familiarizing yourself with cellphone networks, they change rapidly and information from 10 years ago quickly becomes out-of-date.
@Lorne Kates said:
Adblocking != shoplifting. If you want to go the flawed retail store analogy, the best would be somehow getting the Loyalty Card Discount without actually using the Loyalty Card.
... only if the ENTIRE PROFIT MODEL OF THE STORE was based on the delta between loyalty card and non-loyalty card purchases. You analogy is irrelevant because it ain't... Safeway makes profit regardless of whether you use the loyalty card or not. So nice try, but we're not idiots.
Look you don't like the word "shoplifting", fine. Let's use "frooblebutt".
By going to a website, consuming their bandwidth (if you can bitch about petty ad banner bandwidth I can bitch about petty page load bandwidth), consume their content, but don't load ads-- you're frooblebutting that site. You're taking and giving back nothing.
@Lorne Kates said:
You already know that ads get spread through major, otherwise trustworthy ad networks time and time again.
What a shocker. Ad networks serve up ads!?
(Yes i know you're linking to some bullshit but I ain't reading it.)
@Lorne Kates said:
Because only a small, angry minority of uninformed people concider it "unethical".
I'm uninformed? Should I go through all the incorrect bullshit you've spread in this forum? How about yesterday when you said nobody posting in this thread agreed with me, which was a blatant fucking lie?
Or are you saying you're informed but you lie on purpose? Because obviously that's a great way to convince someone in a debate about ethics.
@Lorne Kates said:
Because only a small, angry minority of uninformed people concider it "unethical". Most people, even content creators and advertisers, realize that ads create a negative experience for all parties involved
Summary of that article: Ars Techna intentionally put in industry standard but annoying ads. Readers reacted very badly to both them AND the sponsor. AT killed the deal even though it was worth lots of money. On the other hand, their vidoes with useful content and zero annoying ads were successful, even though they were explicitly sponsored by UPS. In fact, UPS got THANKED by readers for producing those videos. Article ends with Ars Techna saying 'go ahead and block annoying ads, because if they're annoying, the advertisers have failed and we've failed."
ArsTechnica can have whatever policy they want. If Ars says "turn on your ad blocker," then fine, turn it on-- FOR THE ONE SITE THAT GAVE YOU PERMISSION TO.
Ars doesn't speak for the web though.
-
@ais523 said:
I block pretty much everything in my primary browser: cookies (including first-party cookies unless I'm explicitly planning to log in to a website), arbitrary elements via an ad blocker, JavaScript (on a whitelist, hi Community Server)… (Flash isn't even installed in that browser, I use a separate browser on the rare occasions I need it). This is mostly in an attempt to stop badly-coded sites breaking basic functionality; the vast majority of sites just work generically better with JavaScript turned off (typically, more responsive with no apparent drawbacks).
Out of curiosity I just tried to browse the web in Firefox with javascript disabled. And the web without jQuery-driven features is retarded. No drop-down on search boxes (worse: the "type search keyword here" teasers don't go away), many links don't work, can't use basic features like "Look inside" on Amazon, etc. This experience reminded me of browsing the web on Windows Server using Internet Explorer with enhanced security configuration where I have to click "Add to exceptions" on just about any page I visit. Annoying.
I don't know what you do on internet but unless you whitelist a shitload of sites why do you even bother. Just go to the library and read books or something.
-
@blakeyrat said:
@Lorne Kates said:
like just about all the internet connections are in the digital backwater known as American Data Plans-- you literally pay for every MB the ads use up.
What carrier in America does this? I don't know of any who charge in blocks of less than 1 GB.
I agree, paying for ads MB makes no sense. Even on a mobile - I'm using prepaid T-Mobile and for $50/month I have unlimited calls, unlimited texts and unlimited data across the entire country. The only limitations are that after the first 500MB downloaded in a month I get throttled down to 3G, and that in some very remote areas (like Texas near the Mexican border) I may get a weak signal (but anyways when I'm in that area I'm too busy drinking beer and riding shotgun in militia 4x4 hunting down illegal immigrants with my vigilante pals).
3G is not like Google Fiber but even on tethering I can download at 3mb and I can watch Netflix. Ads are not even on the radar.
-
@Ronald said:
Out of curiosity I just tried to browse the web in Firefox with javascript disabled. And the web without jQuery-driven features is retarded. No drop-down on search boxes (worse: the "type search keyword here" teasers don't go away), many links don't work, can't use basic features like "Look inside" on Amazon, etc. This experience reminded me of browsing the web on Windows Server using Internet Explorer with enhanced security configuration where I have to click "Add to exceptions" on just about any page I visit. Annoying.
I hardly ever use search boxes, especially ones embedded on web pages. I typically just embed a site's search into Firefox's search widget thing and use that. (Or use the dubiously-named-but-actually-does-what-I-want-it-to awesomebar.)
I guess I just typically use a widely different set of sites from, well, anyone really. (Also, I typically don't follow links at all, except sometimes internal links within a site. Or if someone's given me a very good reason why I'd be interested on what's at the other end.) If a site manages to break something as simple as links with JavaScript turned off, though, it's not exactly very well written.
jQuery is nice for webapps, but I'm a little surprised it's generally useful for more typical web pages. You know, the ones that are just full of information (originally, this would be FAQs and the like; nowadays, it would more commonly be blog or forum posts). There's not much use for anything but text and the occasional image there. For instance, a site like TDWTF shouldn't (and doesn't) need JavaScript for reading purposes; it's only when you come to post to it, that JS is required. (And only because of Community Server.)
Perhaps (=almost certainly) I'm just genuinely out of touch with what people use the Web for nowadays.
(For online shopping, I would turn JS on, but I'd also be working in a private browsing mode that had no connection to anything outside it, because credit card numbers/passwords/stale sessions aren't the sort of thing you want hanging aorund in your autocomplete.)
-
@ais523 said:
Perhaps (=almost certainly) I'm just genuinely out of touch with what people use the Web for nowadays.
Ok for your convenience here is a summary executive of what typical people use the Web for nowadays:
- Testing if the latest leaked porn passwords on passlot.com work. If not, checking out sites that have free amateur webcams
- Getting into flame wars on Facebook (or Slashdot or TDWTF for geeks)
- Watching overclocked AMD cpu exploding on youtube
- Downloading full episodes of Que Bonito Amor on bittorrent for the maid
- Buying stuff on Amazon and selling it a few weeks later for 1/2 price minus shipping on eBay
- Paying bills with e-banking and wondering why there is a CCBill charge since you were sure the stuff bought on clips4sale.com got paid with the prepaid anonymous Mastercard
That's it. You could add reading cartoons like XKCD or Dilbert but that's a side effect of using Slashdot where all the cartoons are conveniently listed. On very boring days one could also read Techcrunch and get annoyed with people who keep using the words "disrupt" and "pivot", or post stupid questions on Yahoo Answers.
-
I use an adblocker strictly because of security. Every virus I've ever gotten has at least a tenuous, and usually a direct link to visiting a site with ads enabled. Now I do whitelist sites regularly visited, including TDWTF, and many others that I want to support with advertising dollars. But if I ever get something through them, they're blacklisted for good, and I don't mind telling the publishers of said website as much. Yes, I realize I'm the WTF for not running a firewall on my Windows machines, but I shouldn't have to. I don't get viruses or malware because I'm careful about software installations, run anything non trustworthy in a VM, and block ads from sites I don't know. As far as I'm concerned, it works like this; I don't slap plate armor, brush guards, headlight bars and machine guns on my car every time I drive to a new city. Why the hell should my computer have to run intrusive, paranoid, and all around annoying software suites because people refuse to monitor their ad providers properly? It shouldn't be my responsibility as a consumer to make sure their advertising is clean, period.
-
@Lorne Kates said:
I don't buy your pessimistic definition of "ethical" or "stealing".
I don't think that's pessimistic, I think it's the accurate definition that people who aren't trying to rationalize stealing use. Somebody creates content and puts it up, along with ads in the understand that viewing the ads will pay for the content. You consume the content and don't view the ads, depriving them of money. What else would you call it? It's like those people who say pirating movies isn't stealing because they wouldn't have paid for them in the first place--just bullshit rationalizations for selfish, anti-social behavior.
@Lorne Kates said:
You're the one who argued that Firefox sucks becuase of a 3 second lag in opening a new tab. That's the threshold I use to call bullshit on your arguments.
No, this is.. this is just nonsense. The three second lag doesn't benefit Mozilla. It's not something that I agreed to when getting a free browser. There are several free browsers that don't have a 3 second lag. I'm judging a piece of software based on the standards of what should be acceptable behavior in 2013, which is that something like opening a new, blank tab should happen nearly instantly.
The bandwidth that is being consumed is part of what you pay in exchange for the content. Two totally different concepts.
@Lorne Kates said:
And if you're on a metered connection (especially a portable one)-- like just about all the internet connections are in the digital backwater known as American Data Plans-- you literally pay for every MB the ads use up.
First off, I doubt ads are using up that much of your mobile bandwidth. It's probably more apps and videos and shit. Ads are pretty lightweight because the ad networks want them to load quickly, cheaply and to be on the screen as long as possible.
Besides, if there was, like, that one person out there who legitimately could not use the Internet because of ads, then I would say "Fine, block the ads". But we're not talking about not being able to use the Internet, we're talking about a tiny delay in loading and a tiny use of your data plan (which you probably never use 100% of each month anyway..)
@Lorne Kates said:
Hell, take a free vs. paid app for example. It's actually more expensive in more cases to run the free app because of factors like the bandwidth used to serve the ads, vs the $5 the app costs.
First off "may be more expensive". Second off, just buy the fucking paid app then.
@Lorne Kates said:
Adblocking != shoplifting. If you want to go the flawed retail store analogy, the best would be somehow getting the Loyalty Card Discount without actually using the Loyalty Card.
I think Blakey handled this nicely.
@Lorne Kates said:
You already know that ads get spread through major, otherwise trustworthy ad networks time and time again.
Yeah, and people sometimes get sick from public restrooms. That doesn't give them the right to break into private peoples' homes. There's a certain amount of risk in life. Are ads ever-so-slightly riskier than not having ads? Sure, but I bet there are several things in your life that you do every day that are riskier still.
This is a weak argument. Once again you are just trying to rationalize taking something while giving nothing back, violating the social contract that exists between you and content providers.
@Lorne Kates said:
Because only a small, angry minority of uninformed people concider it "unethical".
Bullshit. I think a lot of people, especially those who make money from ads, consider it unethical. A lot of people would be out of work if everyone stopped blocking ads and a lot of good content (and lots of bad content, too) would disappear.
@Lorne Kates said:
Summary of that article: Ars Techna intentionally put in industry standard but annoying ads. Readers reacted very badly to both them AND the sponsor. AT killed the deal even though it was worth lots of money. On the other hand, their vidoes with useful content and zero annoying ads were successful, even though they were explicitly sponsored by UPS. In fact, UPS got THANKED by readers for producing those videos. Article ends with Ars Techna saying 'go ahead and block annoying ads, because if they're annoying, the advertisers have failed and we've failed."
AT can do whatever the fuck they want. That has no bearing on the rest of the industry. If it works for them, great, but most content consumers don't have an audience made up of aspie nerds who flip out and run to their hug boxes when they see a banner ad.
And the sponsored route can be great, but it's a lot more groundwork to get going and it's a lot less reliable stream of revenue. Ads work because they're easy to throw on any piece of content and it's easy to tweak them to get maximum revenue. There's nearly always demand for ad space.
-
@ais523 said:
Perhaps (=almost certainly) I'm just genuinely out of touch with what people use the Web for nowadays.
I think you're out of touch with more than what people use the Web for.
In this day and age, shutting off JS makes you sound like some paranoid luddite.
-
@Master Chief said:
I use an adblocker strictly because of security. Every virus I've ever gotten has at least a tenuous, and usually a direct link to visiting a site with ads enabled. Now I do whitelist sites regularly visited, including TDWTF, and many others that I want to support with advertising dollars. But if I ever get something through them, they're blacklisted for good, and I don't mind telling the publishers of said website as much. Yes, I realize I'm the WTF for not running a firewall on my Windows machines, but I shouldn't have to. I don't get viruses or malware because I'm careful about software installations, run anything non trustworthy in a VM, and block ads from sites I don't know. As far as I'm concerned, it works like this; I don't slap plate armor, brush guards, headlight bars and machine guns on my car every time I drive to a new city. Why the hell should my computer have to run intrusive, paranoid, and all around annoying software suites because people refuse to monitor their ad providers properly? It shouldn't be my responsibility as a consumer to make sure their advertising is clean, period.
I have never ran a firewall on Windows, viewed lots of ads on Windows and never had a virus. I think you're full of it. The number of people affected by viruses from ad networks has to be vanishingly small. You're probably getting viruses from somewhere else.
However, I do wish serving ads didn't require giving full Flash/JS access, because that would improve the situation. Honestly, if the W3C wasn't an inept, shit-for-brains clusterfuck they might have come up with some standard for allowing rich ads to be served while only exposing a limited subset of browser functionality.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@Lorne Kates said:
Because only a small, angry minority of uninformed people concider it "unethical".
Bullshit. I think a lot of people, especially those who make money from ads, consider it unethical.
And this is where I disagree with everything you will ever say on this issue. In regards to the bolded
1) For everyone who isn't the content creator: fuck them. I don't come to Anysite.com to support the ad network, or the ad exec, or the Blakeyrats who are doing analytics, or the sponsors who are looking to increase profits, or for any other third party. Of course they will call it "unethical". They're lying scheming psychopaths who will say anything-- literally anything as long as it's either legal or they don't get caught or punished-- to make a buck. Fuck each and every one of them.
2) For the content creator/website owner themselves: If they're making money, and it's their livelyhood, THEN IT IS A GODDAMN BUSINESS! There is absolutely NO fucking "social contracts" in business. They're worth the paper they're printed on. Seriously. Go start a business-- ANY business-- wait for a customer to behave in a way you don't agree with then try to sue them for violating a SOCIAL CONTRACT. Try to find a judge who won't laugh in your stupid face.
If you put up a public website then you've PUT UP A GODDAMN PUBLIC WEBSITE! If you insist that people watch your ads before/during/after consuming your content, then you either put in a technological method to do so (don't serve content without detecting the ad being played-- paywall it-- ad-based CAPTCHA-- fucking anything), or you put in a legally binding terms of use that clearly states users MUST accept and display all ads and cookies exactly as formatted by the unmodified structure of the website.
Anyone who doesn't accept these terms and conditions can fuck off. Anyone violating them can be sued or prosecuted or blocked.
NO FUCKING SOCIAL CONTRACTS WITH BUSINESSES. Do you have a social contract with your car dealer that says you won't shop around to get a better price on a car? Do you have a social contract with your bank promising to blindly accept their mortgage rate? Do you have a social contract witih your grocery store promising you will never come in and only buy loss leaders? Do you have a social contract with your cell provider that you will never try to exercise an early cancellation clause when they change the TOS on your? Please give me examples of which social contracts you have with for-profit entites.
And you know what one of the hallmark is of a contract? That it's negotiated and fair. Because I have some clauses in my social contract for website owners. I demand that they respect my privacy when it comes to dealing with third parties. I demand they take responsibilty for the ads they serve. I expect them not to profit off scams, poisons and snake oils. I expect them to present material in a tasteful and non-distracting manner. I absolutely demand that they take my computer's security into account.
Oh wait, ad networks are allowed to violate ALL of my terms of the social contract. I guess that means the contract is null and void. I'm free to block the ads, the website owner is free to block my IP.
For websites that aren't profit-based and using the ads as their sole revenue (which no business is 100% dependent on these days--), then hey, throw up a social contract. I've seen websites where their ads are divs floated ontop of another div. The content of the div is "Hey, this is a hobby site. The ads pay the bills. If you can see this, you're blocking ads. Please consider turning off adblock, or using the PayPal button).
I use paypal tip jars. I buy merch. I do support content creators. And when I send them $20, that's twenty fucking dollars more than they'd ever get off me from ad clickthroughs.
-
@blakeyrat said:
@Lorne Kates said:
Financial scams, lies, debt peddlers, diet vultures-- all these ads are highly offensive
Seriously? Offensive? HIGHLY offensive? Yet you post on a forum where dicknugget is practically the highest compliment, and you're perfectly ok with that?
So let's clarify:
"lose weight in 30 days!" - offensive, block
"fuck your mom with a purple dildo you piece of human excrement" - not offensive, post thousands of words to this siteI know you're a sociopath with no idea who humans work, Blakey, but please, for everyone's sake, STOP BEING A FUCKING MORON.
I'm not serious when I say I'm going to fuck your mom with a purple dildo, because she's allergic to latex. I'm not callous. I'm going to use an orange one because they're made from plastic. That's called humor. (Except for next week when I have fucking your mom with a dildo on my Google calendar. She is a punctual woman. And a slut).
But ads like the ones quoted above? Fuck yes, I find them offensive you human piece of excrement. Those vultures exist only the prey on the weak and poor. They are literally lying, thieving scum who cause real, actual harm to human beings.
Do you think it's okay to steal money from people in the name of a diet, when there is no such thing as a diet? What about sending them snake-oil disguised as diet pills? Is it okay if it's sugar tabs and they're just lying to rip people off? Or if they're actual harmful substences that will cause heart defects, kidney failure, anemia, death? Don't you love that they're implying that the people you know and love are FAT UGLY AND SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF THEMSELVES GIVE US MONEY?
What about the shysters and the loans? Are you okay with them using loopholes to break usary laws? Trapping people in a cycle of never ending debt until their only options are bankrupcy or suicide? Destroying people's livelyhoods and ability to earn?
What about get-rich quick schemes? Are you okay with companies taking money from people who are trying to earn a living, preying on the fact that they want to feed their family and keep a roof over their head? Are you okay with pyramid schemes that will steal thousands to millinos of dollars from people? Or what about when it's just a fancy frontage on a Nigerian prince scam?
What about companies peddling WTF software. SPEED UP YOUR PC NOW! Is it just a wrapper around some registry cleaner? Is it a piece of malware? Scareware that will hold people's data hostage? Do you like it when your grandma is duped into giving her credit card details to Narton NoVirus?
Because this is what the ad networks are fucking full of. Liars, scammers, cheaters. Are you okay making a buck off of them? How do you sleep at night? How do you reconcile that with being a good, descent, socially responsible human being?
And hey, why stop there. I make money pickpocketting. But there's a social contract that I need to eat, and people should have just had deeper pockets with zippers. Hmm, blaming the victim on how they're dressed. I CAN MAKE A RAPE JOKE! (Note to Blakey: I don't actually want to rape someone. That's called humor. Except for your mom. She doesn't get humor. And she was asking for it with her eyes. Her tear filled eyes).
How can you NOT be completely angry and offended that people are making money off preying on the weak, damaging people's health and destroying your entire economy?
-
@Lorne Kates said:
1) For everyone who isn't the content creator: fuck them. I don't come to Anysite.com to support the ad network, or the ad exec, or the Blakeyrats who are doing analytics, or the sponsors who are looking to increase profits, or for any other third party. Of course they will call it "unethical". They're lying scheming psychopaths who will say anything-- literally anything as long as it's either legal or they don't get caught or punished-- to make a buck. Fuck each and every one of them.
So basically if someone wasn't the primary content creator, fuck them? By this reasoning, why do you deserve to get paid?
@Lorne Kates said:
2) For the content creator/website owner themselves: If they're making money, and it's their livelyhood, THEN IT IS A GODDAMN BUSINESS! There is absolutely NO fucking "social contracts" in business. They're worth the paper they're printed on. Seriously. Go start a business-- ANY business-- wait for a customer to behave in a way you don't agree with then try to sue them for violating a SOCIAL CONTRACT. Try to find a judge who won't laugh in your stupid face.
This is exactly what I expected you to say, because this is how anti-social assholes think: "Hey, if it's not illegal, I can fuck over everyone I like!" Yeah, a social contract isn't a legally-enforceable instrument. In fact, most things that keep people from being scummy assholes aren't legally-enforceable, but ethical people still do them because it's scummy not to. There's no law against me sleeping with your wife, but most people would realize it's wrong. And ethics aren't usually enforceable by the law (unless you're in a professional like medicine or law, where ethics violations are taken very seriously.. and even then it's just the particular set of ethics defined by that profession..) which is why I haven't said that blocking ads is illegal, just unethical.
@Lorne Kates said:
If you put up a public website then you've PUT UP A GODDAMN PUBLIC WEBSITE! If you insist that people watch your ads before/during/after consuming your content, then you either put in a technological method to do so (don't serve content without detecting the ad being played-- paywall it-- ad-based CAPTCHA-- fucking anything), or you put in a legally binding terms of use that clearly states users MUST accept and display all ads and cookies exactly as formatted by the unmodified structure of the website.
Really? Human decency isn't enough to make you take a step back and realize what you're doing is wrong? There's nothing illegal about pissing on the toilet seat in a public restroom--is that the kind of person you are?
@Lorne Kates said:
NO FUCKING SOCIAL CONTRACTS WITH BUSINESSES. Do you have a social contract with your car dealer that says you won't shop around to get a better price on a car? Do you have a social contract with your bank promising to blindly accept their mortgage rate? Do you have a social contract witih your grocery store promising you will never come in and only buy loss leaders? Do you have a social contract with your cell provider that you will never try to exercise an early cancellation clause when they change the TOS on your? Please give me examples of which social contracts you have with for-profit entites.
None of those would be examples of social contracts. I've already given numerous examples, but clearly you're more interested in rationalizing your anti-social theft than you are in thinking about this. Here's another example: let's say you buy food at a fast food joint and they have packets of ketchup available for you to take. Do you just empty the entire bin into a grocery bag and take it home with you? I'm not aware of anything illegal about taking a few hundred ketchup packets home with you. But sane, ethical people would realize that you were being a huge, flaming douchebag. That's a social contract. It's the same shit as when you take content and block ads.
You can bitch and moan about scummy advertisers all you want (and believe me, there are some scummy people in advertising) but I (and a lot of people) will always see people like you as bigger scumbags.
@Lorne Kates said:
That it's negotiated and fair. Because I have some clauses in my social contract for website owners. I demand that they respect my privacy when it comes to dealing with third parties. I demand they take responsibilty for the ads they serve. I expect them not to profit off scams, poisons and snake oils. I expect them to present material in a tasteful and non-distracting manner. I absolutely demand that they take my computer's security into account.
You know the other, bigger hallmark of a contract? You can't just fucking do what you want if you don't agree to the other person's terms. Don't want to see ads (and I don't give a shit about your stupid fucking rationalizations)? Don't look at the fucking content. Nobody's making you. Your argument amounts to "Well, if they're going to put the ketchup packets out there, then I'm going to take them. If they don't want me taking them, then they shouldn't put them out there." So you know what happens? They stop putting them out there because sleazy people like you ruin it for everybody else. Thanks for making society just a little more cynical and miserable. Hope it was worth getting some shit for free and feeling like you pulled one over on everybody else.
@Lorne Kates said:
For websites that aren't profit-based and using the ads as their sole revenue (which no business is 100% dependent on these days--), then hey, throw up a social contract. I've seen websites where their ads are divs floated ontop of another div. The content of the div is "Hey, this is a hobby site. The ads pay the bills. If you can see this, you're blocking ads. Please consider turning off adblock, or using the PayPal button).
Why does it matter if they're profit-based? So if they're making money it's okay to steal from them? Actually, the cool thing is I'm working on technology to keep people like you from getting anywhere near ad-supported content. To guarantee ads are seen or ban you completely. It's unfortunate resources have to be wasted on something like this, but that's what happens when people have infantile dispositions and believe they're entitled to grab everything that isn't nailed down.
@Lorne Kates said:
I do support content creators. And when I send them $20, that's twenty fucking dollars more than they'd ever get off me from ad clickthroughs.
Ok, you support some, great. But you're depriving many others of revenue. It's like saying "Hey, I act ethically in some circumstances, it's only most of the time I'm an entitled prick."
-
@Lorne Kates said:
Of course they will call it "unethical". They're lying scheming psychopaths who will say anything-- literally anything as long as it's either legal or they don't get caught or punished-- to make a buck.
You heard it here first, folks. I'm worse than a genetically-engineered death-monster with the composite personalities of 37 Hitlers because I do web analytics.
This is obviously a sane and reasoned argument from Mr. Lorne Kates, and not all all loony-bin crazy-talk.
@Lorne Kates said:
2) For the content creator/website owner themselves: If they're making money, and it's their livelyhood, THEN IT IS A GODDAMN BUSINESS! There is absolutely NO fucking "social contracts" in business.
Yeah it's a lot easier to fuck people over when you dehumanize them first. I know this, having the composite personalities of 37 Hitlers.
@Lorne Kates said:
If you insist that people watch your ads before/during/after consuming your content, then you either put in a technological method to do so (don't serve content without detecting the ad being played-- paywall it-- ad-based CAPTCHA-- fucking anything),
Isn't that exactly what they did? You blocked the ad anyway. I guess instructing the browser to download and display it embedded in the rest of the page content wasn't "enough" technological? Or something?
@Lorne Kates said:
or you put in a legally binding terms of use that clearly states users MUST accept and display all ads and cookies exactly as formatted by the unmodified structure of the website.
And you, of course, have read the legal notices of every website you've visited to ensure they do not have that language in their terms of use, correct? Because I wouldn't want you to go against your own principles here, right?
@Lorne Kates said:
And you know what one of the hallmark is of a contract? That it's negotiated and fair. Because I have some clauses in my social contract for website owners. I demand that they respect my privacy when it comes to dealing with third parties. I demand they take responsibilty for the ads they serve. I expect them not to profit off scams, poisons and snake oils. I expect them to present material in a tasteful and non-distracting manner. I absolutely demand that they take my computer's security into account.
Your two options are as follows:
1) View the website content as intended by the website's owner
2) Don't view the website content at all"But, but, you big mean 37-Hitler-head, if I choose number 2 I don't get to read that amusing article my friends are talking about! Whiiine!" Tough shit. Sometimes having principles means making sacrifices.
"But but but Mr. Gandhi, I'm all for the freedom and self-governance of India, but if I go on a hunger strike my sensitive little tummy might growl, which would be slightly unpleasant!" Fucking babies. Man up.
@Lorne Kates said:
I use paypal tip jars. I buy merch. I do support content creators. And when I send them $20, that's twenty fucking dollars more than they'd ever get off me from ad clickthroughs.
Only because you're blocking the ads, idiot. You don't get to pat yourself on the back for saying, "I'm a great person because I solved the problem that I created in the first place!"
-
@Lorne Kates said:
Do you think it's okay to steal money from people in the name of a diet, when there is no such thing as a diet? What about sending them snake-oil disguised as diet pills? Is it okay if it's sugar tabs and they're just lying to rip people off? Or if they're actual harmful substences that will cause heart defects, kidney failure, anemia, death? Don't you love that they're implying that the people you know and love are FAT UGLY AND SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF THEMSELVES GIVE US MONEY?
What about the shysters and the loans? Are you okay with them using loopholes to break usary laws? Trapping people in a cycle of never ending debt until their only options are bankrupcy or suicide? Destroying people's livelyhoods and ability to earn?
What about get-rich quick schemes? Are you okay with companies taking money from people who are trying to earn a living, preying on the fact that they want to feed their family and keep a roof over their head? Are you okay with pyramid schemes that will steal thousands to millinos of dollars from people? Or what about when it's just a fancy frontage on a Nigerian prince scam?
What about companies peddling WTF software. SPEED UP YOUR PC NOW! Is it just a wrapper around some registry cleaner? Is it a piece of malware? Scareware that will hold people's data hostage? Do you like it when your grandma is duped into giving her credit card details to Narton NoVirus?
Because this is what the ad networks are fucking full of. Liars, scammers, cheaters. Are you okay making a buck off of them? How do you sleep at night? How do you reconcile that with being a good, descent, socially responsible human being?
And hey, why stop there. I make money pickpocketting. But there's a social contract that I need to eat, and people should have just had deeper pockets with zippers. Hmm, blaming the victim on how they're dressed. I CAN MAKE A RAPE JOKE! (Note to Blakey: I don't actually want to rape someone. That's called humor. Except for your mom. She doesn't get humor. And she was asking for it with her eyes. Her tear filled eyes).
How can you NOT be completely angry and offended that people are making money off preying on the weak, damaging people's health and destroying your entire economy?
I hate those ads, too, but:
-
The only sites I see those on are basically trash anyway. Like porn. Or bottom-of-the-barrel, flaming dog shit like College Humor. Why are you browsing this garbage in the first place?
-
I just don't view the fucking site. When I do encounter a bottom-of-the-barrel site like that's mostly ads for scams, I just close it and make a mental note never to visit it again.
The real interesting thing is that you're apparently alright with fucking over lots of innocent, hard-working people to stick it to the scammers. It's completely nuts. Let's think of a non-Internet example: you see some guy on a street corner scamming stupid people out of their money with a rigged game of three card Monty. Total scumbag, right? So you shout some obscenity at the guy and then you turn around and treat every single other person you meet like shit. Guy behind the counter at the hardware store? "Hey, fuck you, I saw someone 10 blocks away scamming people out of their money, so that justifies me being an asshole to someone running an upstanding business!"
Finally, as much as it sucks that people get scammed, they always have been scammed and always will be. This has nothing to do with advertising. If it wasn't fake diet pills then it's the guy running a three card Monty game--stupid people get preyed on. I'm not at all saying that justifies what the scammers are doing, but why do you think the existence of shady ads justifies you scamming honest content creators out of their living?
-
-
@Lorne Kates said:
I know you're a sociopath with no idea who humans work, Blakey, but please, for everyone's sake, STOP BEING A FUCKING MORON.
Oh yes. I'm the sociopath obviously.
Not the guy who thinks anybody working in web analytics is 37 Hitlers combined. Thinking people who do harmless jobs are Hitler is a demonstration of perfect Counselor-Troi-like empathy.
@Lorne Kates said:
Do you think it's okay to steal money from people in the name of a diet, when there is no such thing as a diet?
There's no such thing as a diet? Goddamned man. Take your meds.
@Lorne Kates said:
What about the shysters and the loans?
There's no such thing as a loan! ... right?
@Lorne Kates said:
Are you okay with them using loopholes to break usary laws?
No. Is that a thing that happens? Do you have evidence of it happening?
@Lorne Kates said:
Trapping people in a cycle of never ending debt until their only options are bankrupcy or suicide? Destroying people's livelyhoods and ability to earn?
You... you do realize, being obviously not-a-sociopath, that people voluntarily enter into loans, right? They don't get whacked in the back of the head by a burly man with a blackjack, and wake up 8 hours later off the coast of Belize.
@Lorne Kates said:
Do you like it when your grandma is duped into giving her credit card details to Narton NoVirus?
Ha ha! Your wittiness astounds me good sir!
A few days ago: I saw someone spell Microsoft with a DOLLAR SIGN instead of an S! It was a real knee-slapper! That gent was really socking-it to the system, by jove!
@Lorne Kates said:
Because this is what the ad networks are fucking full of. Liars, scammers, cheaters.
Oo, oo, which one am I?
@Lorne Kates said:
How do you reconcile that with being a good, descent, socially responsible human being?
I compare myself to the guy on web forums saying anybody who works in web analytics is a Hitler-monster, and that helps a lot.
Also I'd love to be a Descent human being. That game rocked!
Wooo!@Lorne Kates said:
How can you NOT be completely angry and offended that people are making money off preying on the weak, damaging people's health and destroying your entire economy?
If that were happening, it would make me angry.
-
high-fives Morbs
-
@morbiuswilters said:
So basically if someone wasn't the primary content creator, fuck them? By this reasoning, why do you deserve to get paid?
I never said Primary. Stop Blakeyratting words that I didn't say.
And I never said I deserve to get paid. In fact I believe I've made my point on that clear. And it doesn't matter. You don't pay me. Blakey doesn't pay me. Unless you're primary shareholders at Inedo. Which I don't think you are. Unless you're one of these people who yells at policemen that I PAY YOUR SALARY!
And on that, I have to say I'm dissapointed in both of you. I can't believe you both can be this detached from reality. You start your argument on a faulty premise (blocking ads is STEALING), back it up with stupid ideas (Ads are the one and only way to get paid and the entire Internet will go bankrupt without them), create mythical constructs to justify your stance (social contract lol), and finally resort to namecalling when all else fails (though, they were funny, so you get a point on that).
I'll close with these thoughts: If blocking ads are destroying the Internet, and everyone is blocking ads, then why is the Internet still around. I'm willing to unequivocally state without doing any research that there is ungodly amounts more creative and good content on the Internet now and being created each and every minute. Despite it all being stolen. Somehow.
3rd party ads are a security risk, and invasion of privacy, a visual cancer, and they've only brought it on themselves. If ads died tomorrow, content creators would be fine. In fact, it's thanks to the anti-ad movement that you have donate buttons, Kickstarter, amazing merchandise, touring creators, conventions, print editions of online comics, and some good work being done on Microtransactions. Creators are being compensated.
I support content creators. I'm sorry it's not to your liking. I bet those with my money don't give a fuck what you think.
And speaking of literally stealing from creators: Morbs, why are you literally stealing from Joseph M. Newcomer? Do you have express written consent to use his copyrighted, creative images for your own purposes? You did notice the copyright notices, right? Are you compensating him? Or are you just stealing his bandwidth? You do know that it is socially unacceptable to hotlink to images, right? At least I have the decency to find free creative commons images. Asshole. When the entire forum gets taken down with a DCMA notice, I'll know who to thank.
-
@Lorne Kates said:
I never said Primary. Stop Blakeyratting words that I didn't say.
I said primary, because I wanted to understand who the hell you did think deserved to be paid. The people who run ads, do analytics, etc. help make the venture profitable for the content creators. So maybe they're not directly creating the content, but they're supporting it; division of labor.
@Lorne Kates said:
You don't pay me. Blakey doesn't pay me. Unless you're primary shareholders at Inedo. Which I don't think you are.
Oh, but, didn't you just say we didn't deserve to get paid because we aren't content creators but instead work on the support side of things?
@Lorne Kates said:
You start your argument on a faulty premise (blocking ads is STEALING)...
You have yet to provide any good reason why taking something without giving anything in return when it's clearly expected that you should is anything less than stealing.
@Lorne Kates said:
...back it up with stupid ideas (Ads are the one and only way to get paid and the entire Internet will go bankrupt without them)...
I never said that. Ads are the best way for a lot of content creators to make money off of their content, though, since micro-payments don't work and tip jars don't yield very reliable income (unless you have a very large base of readers/viewers/whatever.. in which case ads will usually still yield better income.)
@Lorne Kates said:
...create mythical constructs to justify your stance (social contract lol)...
It's not mythical, although the terminology isn't 100% accurate (social contract theory is more of a political thing about the origins of government.) I got the phrase "social contract" from Alex. I used to use the phrase "the thing which says you're an asshole if you take all of the ketchup packets just because there isn't an armed guard keeping you from doing it" but it lacked brevity.
@Lorne Kates said:
If blocking ads are destroying the Internet, and everyone is blocking ads, then why is the Internet still around.
I never said any of that. Most people aren't big enough assholes to block ads. And even if everybody did it the Internet would be around, content would just suck. As it is, they're surely having some negative impact on the revenue content creators can turn.
@Lorne Kates said:
If ads died tomorrow, content creators would be fine.
You really have very little idea of the economics of running a site, don't you? Some would be fine, but a lot of good content would vanish. Shit, practically every good TV show ever made was ad-supported.
@Lorne Kates said:
Creators are being compensated.
Sometimes. Oftentimes, the same selfish pieces of shit who block ads don't donate, don't buy merch, don't pay to see someone on tour, don't go to cons, don't buy print editions and wouldn't touch micro-transactions with a 10 foot clown pole. I know, it's shocking that me-first, "gimme gimme gimme" infants don't really have any interest in paying for anything. In fact, as I've already pointed out a dozen times, these are the same people who pirate content when they have the opportunity to pay for it and then rationalize that theft.
Maybe you're the special little flower who does donate, who does buy merch, but surely you realize your in the minority of ad blockers by doing that, right? At the very least, that should appeal to your obvious sense of self-righteousness.
@Lorne Kates said:
I support content creators. I'm sorry it's not to your liking. I bet those with my money don't give a fuck what you think.
You support some content creators. And the ones who don't have money and who you ripped off probably hate your guts. How can you not see this? Why do you think doing one good thing makes up for a pattern of shitty behavior?
@Lorne Kates said:
Do you have express written consent to use his copyrighted, creative images for your own purposes?
He's out nothing. He's got no ads anyway and I'm linking to his site so I'm probably giving him more traffic than he's seen in a long time.
@Lorne Kates said:
Or are you just stealing his bandwidth? You do know that it is socially unacceptable to hotlink to images, right?
Did you actually bother checking the img tag before you said that? It's hosted on my server. It's also down-scaled because the original was massive.
At the end of the day, you've provided no solid reason why it should be okay for you to steal from people. And considering the anger you've shown, I think you do feel a little guilty about it and you're upset I challenged your flimsy rationalizations.
You never addressed any of my points about taking things from people (like the ketchup packets) or treating people like shit just because you can. It makes me honestly suspect that you are the kind of nut-job who goes into a McDonald's, orders a 60 cent Coke and then walks out with a grocery bag full of condiments. I mean, it's not illegal, right? And if it's not illegal, it's not wrong. I guess some people are just the kind of people who will only behave if there's a gun pointed at them. It's sick and sad, but people suck.
-
@Lorne Kates said:
You start your argument on a faulty premise (blocking ads is STEALING),
I never said that. Stop Blakeyratting words that I didn't say!
@Lorne Kates said:
back it up with stupid ideas (Ads are the one and only way to get paid and the entire Internet will go bankrupt without them),
I also never said that. Quote me. I dare you.
@Lorne Kates said:
create mythical constructs to justify your stance (social contract lol),
We hardly "created" the concept of a social contract; it was proposed in the 17th century by the philosopher Thomas Hobbes.
@Lorne Kates said:
and finally resort to namecalling when all else fails (though, they were funny, so you get a point on that).
Yay a point!
@Lorne Kates said:
If blocking ads are destroying the Internet, and everyone is blocking ads, then why is the Internet still around.
Because not everyone's blocking ads. Dumbshit. Do I get another point for calling you a dumbshit?
Hey when you make really, really dumb arguments like that, could you maybe show a TEENY bit of self-awareness and maybe predict the obvious response them them? It'd save me time.
@Lorne Kates said:
I support content creators.
A select few perhaps. Unless you were lying about that.
@Lorne Kates said:
I bet those with my money don't give a fuck what you think.
I'll take that bet.
-
Alright, I lie, I must post one more because this one's
way to funny to ignore:Needs some clarification@blakeyrat said:
There's no such thing as a diet? Goddamned man. Take your meds.
No, there isn't. I should clarify that there is no such thing as a diet that works, and absolutely no such thing as a miracle fad diet that works as sold by ad networks.
Calories in, calories out. Obey your age/gender reccomendations for fat, cholesterol, sodium. There, that's all you need. Oh an willpower. Obesity solved. Can we stop the fucking ads?
@blakeyrat said:
@Lorne Kates said:
Are you okay with them using loopholes to break usary laws?
No. Is that a thing that happens? Do you have evidence of it happening?
Go educate your ignorant ass on payday loans.
@blakeyrat said:
that people voluntarily enter into loans, right?
"I can either starve to death, or get a payday loan. Hmmm." (Neglecting the fact that they could probably instead get some free financial education, trim their expenses, aggresively pay down their debts, do without "want" for a while, and possible look for a new career to increase their salary). NO NOT ACCORDING TO THE AD CHEAP EASY MONEY NOW!
@blakeyrat said:
@Lorne Kates said:
Because this is what the ad networks are fucking full of. Liars, scammers, cheaters.
Oo, oo, which one am I?
Well, you are self-delusional and in denail about the harm your industry causes to society. So I'll go with liar. But really, you're Blakeyrat. That's a catagory all on its own.
@blakeyrat said:
Also I'd love to be a Descent human being. That game rocked!
Okay, that was funny. +1
@blakeyrat said:
@Lorne Kates said:
How can you NOT be completely angry and offended that people are making money off preying on the weak, damaging people's health and destroying your entire economy?
If that were happening, it would make me angry.
Again your complete detatchment with reality astounds me. You have heard of the mortgage crisis in your country, right? You do know of the obescity epidemic which has given rise to an entire industry of "fix it quick" weightloss fads. You do know the FDA exists specifically to regulate and control harmful substances BECAUSE they are being sold to people. I-- wow, Blakey. Just wow.
And since I'm too lazy to scroll up (or spellcheck this message, so more Descent zingers are welcome), paraphrase:
@whoeverthefuck said:
Idiots get scammed LOL!
So you're okay if people lie, cheat and steal-- as long as the victims are stupid. But it's not okay to browse a website with an adblocker because it is "stealing" from a content creator.
You-- you don't see the issue there? In your reasoning? That you're using to reason with?
Enjoy your paycheck.
Oh-- and also, same question to you. How good do you feel about STEALING those avatars you use? Did you get written permission to use the creative content of another person? Did you pay for redistribution rights? Do you credit the original owners?
And what about when your video game thing was taken down by Youtube. Did you respect the content creator's wishes, or did you fight it? Even if you were in the legal right to do so, don't you realize you have a social contract to obey their wishes, and only use their creative content in a manner than they design?
-
@Lorne Kates said:
"I can either starve to death, or get a payday loan. Hmmm."
Bullshit. I don't know how it is up there, but practically everyone getting a payday loan here is already on food stamps. Most don't even have a "pay day", they're just borrowing against their welfare checks so they can buy scratch-off tickets or booze.
@Lorne Kates said:
You have heard of the mortgage crisis in your country, right?
Which, from what little I know, had more to do with the government-finance complex than it did online ads.
@Lorne Kates said:
You do know of the obescity epidemic which has given rise to an entire industry of "fix it quick" weightloss fads.
That shit's been around since people went from not having enough to eat to having too much. And it's the same lazy, "quick fix" mentality which led to them being fat in the first place.
@Lorne Kates said:
You do know the FDA exists specifically to regulate and control harmful substances BECAUSE they are being sold to people.
Last I checked, the FDA just exists to keep useful treatments from ever seeing the light of day.
@Lorne Kates said:
So you're okay if people lie, cheat and steal-- as long as the victims are stupid.
You really should have bothered scrolling up. I never said this. In fact, I said it was repulsive. But that doesn't excuse you to go on and cheat other people who had nothing to do with it.
@Lorne Kates said:
Enjoy your paycheck.
I used to enjoy it more when they printed it with orphan blood. But the marketing folks said it that ever got it, we'd have a harder time tricking little old grannies into letting us into their apartments so we can club them over the head and steal their pension checks.
@Lorne Kates said:
How good do you feel about STEALING those avatars you use? Did you get written permission to use the creative content of another person? Did you pay for redistribution rights? Do you credit the original owners?
Why do you think this is stealing? Do you really think a still-frame from a TV show that nobody here can even identify is depriving anyone, anywhere of revenue? I'm starting to worry about your sanity here..
@Lorne Kates said:
And what about when your video game thing was taken down by Youtube. Did you respect the content creator's wishes, or did you fight it? Even if you were in the legal right to do so, don't you realize you have a social contract to obey their wishes, and only use their creative content in a manner than they design?
Oh, you're talking to Blakey. I really don't think you understand any argument which has been made thus far. The "social contract" thing doesn't mean "you must do what everyone else says". It's just "Hey, maybe if someone is good enough to put up some content they worked on--and you consume it--you shouldn't be a total dick and maybe should try to see that they get something in return."
-
@Lorne Kates said:
@blakeyrat said:
There's no such thing as a diet? Goddamned man. Take your meds.
No, there isn't. I should clarify that there is no such thing as a diet that works,
I spent a lot of time working at a hospital, and I can guarantee the doctors and nurses will be very shocked to hear that. Hey guys, according to Lorne Kates, it's literally impossible to control your diabetes with diet, because no diet ever works! I just saved you some time, grab those insulin bags.
@Lorne Kates said:
Calories in, calories out. Obey your age/gender reccomendations for fat, cholesterol, sodium. There, that's all you need.
A set of nutritional recommendations to follow? Why you've laid out what almost could be called a... diet! Too bad it doesn't work, per your first paragraph.
@Lorne Kates said:
Go educate your ignorant ass on payday loans.
Payday loan businesses don't break usury laws. In fact they're careful as hell to get nowhere close to breaking usury laws. It is true that many States in the US have weak regulations for short-term loans, but when those regulations change, so do the payday lenders. Like happened in Ohio a few years ago.
@Lorne Kates said:
"I can either starve to death, or get a payday loan. Hmmm." (Neglecting the fact that they could probably instead get some free financial education, trim their expenses, aggresively pay down their debts, do without "want" for a while, and possible look for a new career to increase their salary). NO NOT ACCORDING TO THE AD CHEAP EASY MONEY NOW!
There's nothing wrong with taking out a payday loan if you're in a bind. It is true that some irresponsible people who take out payday loans end up in bigger trouble because they don't plan ahead, but that's not the fault of the loan issuer, that's the fault of the consumer.
I'm sorry you don't like some loan outfit's ad slogan, but that's hardly an argument for blocking ads. Especially on the Internet. (Payday loan places, from my experience, almost never bother advertising on the Internet-- they advertise where people with money troubles hang out, like on TV at 3:00 AM or in alternative weekly newspapers.)
@Lorne Kates said:
But really, you're Blakeyrat. That's a catagory all on its own.
Woo! You know, FYI, Chrome has a built-in spellchecker. It's not the greatest, but it does know the word "category" at least.
@Lorne Kates said:
Again your complete detatchment with reality astounds me. You have heard of the mortgage crisis in your country, right?
Derp. What the fuck does it have to do with Internet advertising?
@Lorne Kates said:
You do know of the obescity epidemic which has given rise to an entire industry of "fix it quick" weightloss fads.
Yeah because obviously fad diets didn't exist before the Internet. OH WAIT THEY EXISTED 2,000 YEARS AGO.
God, Lorne, I'm starting to think you're just dumb. Like just literally not a very bright person at all.
@Lorne Kates said:
You do know the FDA exists specifically to regulate and control harmful substances BECAUSE they are being sold to people.
Derp. What the fuck does that have to do with Internet advertising? You're waaay off the track here.
@Lorne Kates said:
Oh-- and also, same question to you. How good do you feel about STEALING those avatars you use?
OH SNAP aren't you gonna be pissed when you find out I take my avatars from the public domain! OH SNAP!
Godzilla 2000's copyright is current however. I don't feel that I'm depriving Toho of any revenue from using Godzilla 2000 in my signature line, but if a representative of Toho asked me to stop, I would do so. "Hey guys, we don't need to spend $15 on that Godzilla 2000 DVD, I found some guy's signature line on the Internet that contains a 8-frame gif of Godzilla, that's just as good as watching the full 2-hour movie right?"
@Lorne Kates said:
And what about when your video game thing was taken down by Youtube. Did you respect the content creator's wishes, or did you fight it?
I respected the content creator's wishes by fighting it. The copyright claim wasn't from THQ or Voition (the creators of the game involved), it was from a TV show that aired a cut-scene from the game and subsequently entered that review into YouTube's ContentID database-- even though they did not own the cutscene involved. (Which is why I've been crying from the rooftops that ContentID badly, badly, badly needs more human involvement/policing-- right now it's ridiculously easy to abuse. Even by accident.)
@Lorne Kates said:
Even if you were in the legal right to do so, don't you realize you have a social contract to obey their wishes, and only use their creative content in a manner than they design?
By fighting it, I was obeying their wishes.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
I have never ran a firewall on Windows, viewed lots of ads on Windows and never had a virus. I think you're full of it. The number of people affected by viruses from ad networks has to be vanishingly small. You're probably getting viruses from somewhere else.
However, I do wish serving ads didn't require giving full Flash/JS access, because that would improve the situation. Honestly, if the W3C wasn't an inept, shit-for-brains clusterfuck they might have come up with some standard for allowing rich ads to be served while only exposing a limited subset of browser functionality.
I didn't say it was recent. I haven't had a virus in probably 7 years. I attribute that largely to being extremely protective of what I allow on my computer, and yes that includes ads.
IMHO, this is a problem with no solution other than these damn ad companies getting off their asses and actually regulating what they serve. Every time I have messaged an administrator about viruses delivered by their ads, it's the same fucking excuse: I don't handle that, X does. Well X then will say we just have too much moving through the pipes to regulate it. Really? You're hosting malware, viruses, and other programs used to fuck up computers and steal people's hard earned money, and your excuse is that your business is just doing too good to allow for proper security? Fuck that shit.
I'm happy to support sites I regularly visit, but as to any random website from a Google search, hell, and no, am I allowing any random ass content from their random ass ad provider to be run on my machine.
-
@Master Chief said:
IMHO, this is a problem with no solution other than these damn ad companies getting off their asses and actually regulating what they serve.
You realize they DO right? (Well, the ones that don't serve porno ads. The porno ones don't even try.) Hell, Google's infamous for taking AGES to approve creatives sometimes, especially video creatives which can take up to 2 weeks.
The problem is that new viruses come along that their automated systems can't detect. Same problem Narton NoVirus (LOLOL!!!) has on your desktop PC.
@Master Chief said:
I'm happy to support sites I regularly visit, but as to any random website from a Google search, hell, and no, am I allowing any random ass content from their random ass ad provider to be run on my machine.
You could just install virus protection on your machine. And remove Java and Flash. That way you're safe and you can support content creators.
-
I've never had a virus. Except for rhinovirus. Advertisements gave me a cold.
-
@blakeyrat said:
@Master Chief said:
IMHO, this is a problem with no solution other than these damn ad companies getting off their asses and actually regulating what they serve.
You realize they DO right? (Well, the ones that don't serve porno ads. The porno ones don't even try.) Hell, Google's infamous for taking AGES to approve creatives sometimes, especially video creatives which can take up to 2 weeks.
The problem is that new viruses come along that their automated systems can't detect. Same problem Narton NoVirus (LOLOL!!!) has on your desktop PC.
@Master Chief said:
I'm happy to support sites I regularly visit, but as to any random website from a Google search, hell, and no, am I allowing any random ass content from their random ass ad provider to be run on my machine.
You could just install virus protection on your machine. And remove Java and Flash. That way you're safe and you can support content creators.
I'm not even going to bother selectively quoting. This is a 100% pure blakeyrat self-contradiction.
So which one is it, blakey? Should we install antivirus software or is it pointless?
-
@Ben L. said:
So which one is it, blakey? Should we install antivirus software or is it pointless?
Your question is based on a bad assumption, i.e. an assumption that the only way to get a virus is through web advertisements. The assumption is not true, therefore your question is meaningless. QED.
-
@blakeyrat said:
@Ben L. said:
So which one is it, blakey? Should we install antivirus software or is it pointless?
Your question is based on a bad assumption, i.e. an assumption that the only way to get a virus is through web advertisements. The assumption is not true, therefore your question is meaningless. QED.
what
-
@blakeyrat said:
Hell, Google's infamous for taking AGES to approve creatives sometimes, especially video creatives which can take up to 2 weeks.
Or you could just buy an ad from a company who resells ad space from Google. Or a company who resells ad space from that company. 90% of all ad problems would go away if Google stopped allowing ad syndication and required that all ad content be served from their servers only.
Here's a situation where ads hurt people directly. Say person A makes some widget and puts it up for download, putting ads on the site because "all sites have ads". This is what it looks like at first. (Linked because CS seems to have started to strip images for whatever reason.)
XYZ widget becomes popular, and lots of people download it. Some hackers go ahead and buy an ad that looks like a part of the site and a legitimate download link, which is really a virus.
You may say this is some fantasy scenario, but it actually happens on sites like Rapidshare or adf.ly. I've seen big "download now" ads come up on sites that don't even serve downloads just because somebody buys ad space from a Google reseller that shows it indiscriminately.
-
@MiffTheFox said:
You may say this is some fantasy scenario, but it actually happens on sites like Rapidshare or adf.ly. I've seen big "download now" ads come up on sites that don't even serve downloads just because somebody buys ad space from a Google reseller that shows it indiscriminately.
And the thing about these is that there is often no separation between the ad and page content (e.g. a border around the ad), and more than once I've clicked on the ad thinking it was the legitimate download button for something before realising a second later that I've clicked the wrong one, mashed the stop button and clicked on the correct, smaller, less obvious download button.
-
@Douglasac said:
@MiffTheFox said:
You may say this is some fantasy scenario, but it actually happens on sites like Rapidshare or adf.ly. I've seen big "download now" ads come up on sites that don't even serve downloads just because somebody buys ad space from a Google reseller that shows it indiscriminately.
And the thing about these is that there is often no separation between the ad and page content (e.g. a border around the ad), and more than once I've clicked on the ad thinking it was the legitimate download button for something before realising a second later that I've clicked the wrong one, mashed the stop button and clicked on the correct, smaller, less obvious download button.
Hell, once I've actually based a piece of software for containing a virus (my virus scanner caught it and was like LOLNOPE) not realizing that I clicked one of these ads.
-
@blakeyrat said:
The problem is that new viruses come along that their automated systems can't detect. Same problem Narton NoVirus (LOLOL!!!) has on your desktop PC.
That's still the ad provider's problem and responsibility; not the consumer's. Can't detect new viruses? Don't allow Flash. Don't allow javascript which may perform automatic redirects or may download additional code on-the-fly. Perform in-depth review on ad content for all first-time customers. That'll catch the major part of all problems before an ad ever becomes hosted. (Not allowing further on-demand loading of code means nothing is snuk in 'through the back' once the ad has gone up.)
Can't turn a profit with that? Then maybe you should realize a business model based around bulk-advertising is not viable anymore.
-
@Lorne Kates said:
If blocking ads are destroying the Internet, and everyone is blocking ads, then why is the Internet still around.
Because they came from a common ancestor!
-
I think the optimal solution would be something like Noscript's third-party content blocking, except for fourth-party content instead.
Let Google load the ad code, but have it deny it once it gets to the first syndicator. That way Google still tracks an ad impression even though the real ad (which comes from syndicators buying from syndicators) doesn't get loaded.
-
@MiffTheFox said:
So you want your browser to make ads pay less to site owners because they know 90% of the impressions are fake?I think the optimal solution would be something like Noscript's third-party content blocking, except for fourth-party content instead.
Let Google load the ad code, but have it deny it once it gets to the first syndicator. That way Google still tracks an ad impression even though the real ad (which comes from syndicators buying from syndicators) doesn't get loaded.
-
@blakeyrat said:
You realize they DO right? (Well, the ones that don't serve porno ads. The porno ones don't even try.) Hell, Google's infamous for taking AGES to approve creatives sometimes, especially video creatives which can take up to 2 weeks.
One caveat, I allow google's ad servers universally. Should've mentioned that, my bad.The problem is that new viruses come along that their automated systems can't detect. Same problem Narton NoVirus (LOLOL!!!) has on your desktop PC.
That said, to say that all of them should be trusted because google does is absurd. How many of these ramshackle "companies" based out of India are in-depth testing their client's submitted content, and how many of those few will actually refuse to serve it? Somewhere between zero and one I suspect.
@blakeyrat said:
You could just install virus protection on your machine. And remove Java and Flash. That way you're safe and you can support content creators.
Again, I don't bolt armor onto my car every time I go for a drive. But we do that shit to our computers constantly, because we simply accept that viruses have destroyed the credibility of internet advertising.
So by your own claim, to avoid viruses I have to install intrusive monitoring software (firewall), remove Java (already did anyway, no good reason to have it in a browser), and Flash (still many legitimate applications for this on the Internet).
Being a content creator, I understand what you're saying (possibly more than you do.) My websites have no ads for this exact reason, and I throw up a little thing saying hey, I don't get any support from advertising companies because I don't want to trash your fun on my site. If you like what I do, throw me a few bucks to keep it coming. And I'm happy to throw a few bucks to other people, too.
-
@MiffTheFox said:
Now that, I do have ethical problems with, since you're basically telling the provider that the ad was loaded when it was in fact not shown to the user. That's straight up fraud.I think the optimal solution would be something like Noscript's third-party content blocking, except for fourth-party content instead.
Let Google load the ad code, but have it deny it once it gets to the first syndicator. That way Google still tracks an ad impression even though the real ad (which comes from syndicators buying from syndicators) doesn't get loaded.
-
@Master Chief said:
Being a content creator, I understand what you're saying (possibly more than you do.)
Because I r so dum!!!
@Master Chief said:
And I'm happy to throw a few bucks to other people, too.
So am I, but the vast majority of sites don't ask for "throw a few bucks", they ask for "view ad placements". Like I said above about Ars, you're welcome to do whatever the fuck you want with your own site. But your site doesn't speak for the rest of the Internet. And saying, "I block ads because the 1% of sites I visit that have tip jars, I might someday tip them", that's fucking ridiculous.
But of course you understand that far better than I do, because I'm so dumb.
-
@blakeyrat said:
Woo! You know, FYI, Chrome has a built-in spellchecker. It's not the greatest, but it does know the word "category" at least.
So does Firefox. But for some reason Community Server turns off the "Check spelling" feature each time. Maybe the ID or name of the textarea changes after each post? Who knows. And since it was remember to spell check or call you a fucking moron-- well, we know which of those two options has a higher priority.
@blakeyrat said:
OH SNAP aren't you gonna be pissed when you find out I take my avatars from the public domain! OH SNAP!
So that movie with Splinter was in the public domain? And you had permission to use that Pangoliwhatever photo for years?
@blakeyrat said:
Godzilla 2000's copyright is current however. I don't feel that I'm depriving Toho of any revenue from using Godzilla 2000 in my signature line, but if a representative of Toho asked me to stop, I would do so. "Hey guys, we don't need to spend $15 on that Godzilla 2000 DVD, I found some guy's signature line on the Internet that contains a 8-frame gif of Godzilla, that's just as good as watching the full 2-hour movie right?
Ah, so there IS a point where it is okay to break the law and steal from content creators. I'm glad you don't "feel" that your actions are contrary to the actual law.
The rightsholder/content creator of Godzilla ar the only ones who can say if your signature is allowed. What if they wanted to sell a service that provided officially licensed signature images? (Because, FYI, that's that perfectly valid reason that content creators give for not allowing otherwise innocuous infringment-- it is literally impacting their ability to release a product).
I guess, as a video game person, you "feel" that Abandonware is a real, actual thing? (THAT'S AN UNFOUNDED ASSUMPTION! LET'S ARGUE OVER IT!)
@blakeyrat said:
A set of nutritional recommendations to follow? Why you've laid out what almost could be called a... diet! Too bad it doesn't work, per your first paragraph.
THIS THREAD IS NOW ABOUT DIETS!
Fair enough. I re-read what I posted and it wasn't clear enough. I'll chalk it up to knowing what I was saying well enough to let shortcuts slip into my argument.
To clarify: When I referred to "diet", I'm referring to these "new age" (I acknowledge the 2000 year old thing, hence the quote), feel goood, shortcut, fad diets. They almost always fall into the for "Eat only this one thing / Don't eat this one thing". Usually for a perscribed period of time. It's usually enhanced by some pseudoscience bullshit about nutrition. The current fad seems to be "detoxification". Previously it was Teh Evil Carbs.
In every single case, these Diets (I'll try to use capital D to disambiuos this) are for-profit programs. There will be lots of things for the dieter to spend money on including but not limited to books, videos, pamphlets, extra "education" courses, or (and here's the big one) suppliments or vitamins or some other magic pill.
The pills range from completely innoxuous sugar pills, to medically unproved (or useless) vitamins or herbs, to medically active ingredients that might actually be harmful to the human body given the context of weight loss. Like those "fat blockers" which cause digestive issues, or if you're really lucky, renal failure or loss of gall bladder.
All of these fads have a LOT of marketing behind them. There's always words like "easy" and "magic" and "simple". There's lots of before and after shots of "results" (that are either faked, staged, disengenuous, to actual weight loss results from something other than the program being sold). They all promise quick fix to what is a genuinely difficult problem.
Once money changes hands, the goal is either to get the client to fuck off, or to keep getting money from them. Chances are the person will see a bit of weight loss and mistake it for actual results. Nearly everyone will quickly lose about 5lbs of water weight. Quick, easy. But then things slow down. And it's not because the Diet is wrong. It's because UR NOT DOING IT RIGHT! (Hallmark of pseudoscience). You aren't buying enough suppliments. You aren't paying for enough concelling. You need to take the advanced course. You have too many toxins, you need the advanced flush.
THESE are the Diets I was referring to. They're bullshit, and the only thing they actually lighten is your wallet. They're completely contrary to actual, healthy, proven weightloss techniques.
Even after all that, I'm hesitant to refer to "real" diets as a diet, because the word's been so polluted. Any legitimate nurse, doctor, health practitioner, etc, will tell you what you need to do. It's a lifestyle change. Eat less. Eat better. Balance your calories in with the calories you burn. You'll lose weight. Get exercise. Limit fat, salt, sugars, cholesterol. Do cardio so you don't die of a heart attack at 40. All very simple, basic things. But it's hard to do. It's hard to get motivated to get up and move around. It's difficult to give up foods that you love and have an emotional attachment to. It takes time and effort to cook healthy. And it's difficult not to lose motivation in the face of healthy, slow results. (2lbs a month is a nice, healthy pace, for example).
That's why I hate and am offended by these "Diets" and their mareketting. They're preying on people who do want to make a change in their life. It's that first step-- I want to get healthy. They've made that step. Great, now in comes the Diets to distract them from doing what would actually make them a better, healthier person. It's disgusting and predatory. And it's all predicated on making people believe in Diets (short term, one time, quick fix easy solution instead of a lifestyle, life-long change).
Diets sell and live off hope, because there's no such thing as deits. And you can quote me on that-- oh. =|
-
@Lorne Kates said:
So that movie with Splinter was in the public domain?
Same argument as the Godzilla gif: my use of a single scaled-down still frame isn't depriving a, what, 36 episode TV series of revenue. The pangolin was creative commons.
When I'm taking a moral stance, like I am in this thread, I use my own sense of morality to judge what is right and what is not right even if it (may be) technically against the law. (I don't know how or if fair use applies to forum avatars.)
The difference between my moral stance and your moral stance is that my moral stance doesn't fuck over content creators on the web.
@Lorne Kates said:
The rightsholder/content creator of Godzilla ar the only ones who can say if your signature is allowed. What if they wanted to sell a service that provided officially licensed signature images? (Because, FYI, that's that perfectly valid reason that content creators give for not allowing otherwise innocuous infringment-- it is literally impacting their ability to release a product).
AS I SAID, if a representative of Toho contacted me and asked me to remove the image from my server, I would do so.
@Lorne Kates said:
Fair enough. I re-read what I posted and it wasn't clear enough. I'll chalk it up to knowing what I was saying well enough to let shortcuts slip into my argument.
I'm gonna chalk it up to you being a bit dim. Or possibly to you having no idea what the word "diet" (in the nutrition sense-- maybe you have a good internalized understanding of the political concept) actually means.
@Lorne Kates said:
Diets sell and live off hope, because there's no such thing as deits.
That's the first thing you've said that makes sense. A quick Googling shows there is indeed no such thing as "deits". Well, except this guy.
@Lorne Kates said:
Filed under: I spell checked this post so don't fuck you.
Maaaybe just a little bit more than "dim". Maybe more like, "black hole of stupidity."
-
@blakeyrat said:
@Lorne Kates said:
So that movie with Splinter was in the public domain?
Same argument as the Godzilla gif: my use of a single scaled-down still frame isn't depriving a, what, 36 episode TV series of revenue. The pangolin was creative commons.
When I'm taking a moral stance, like I am in this thread, I use my own sense of morality to judge what is right and what is not right even if it (may be) technically against the law. (I don't know how or if fair use applies to forum avatars.)
The difference between my moral stance and your moral stance is that my moral stance doesn't fuck over content creators on the web.
Duly noted. You can break the law and steal from creators when it's convenient for you. If they don't like it, it's their fault for not chasing after you and telling you to behave. Even though it violates actual codified law, it doesn't upset the fantasy ethic code you made up for yourself.
You do know that's pretty much a textbook definition of a sociopath, right?
@blakeyrat said:
AS I SAID, if a representative of Toho contacted me and asked me to remove the image from my server, I would do so.
Can I quote Mighty Mighty Bosstones at you?
@blakeyrat said:
@Lorne Kates said:
Fair enough. I re-read what I posted and it wasn't clear enough. I'll chalk it up to knowing what I was saying well enough to let shortcuts slip into my argument.
I'm gonna chalk it up to you being a bit dim. Or possibly to you having no idea what the word "diet" (in the nutrition sense-- maybe you have a good internalized understanding of the political concept) actually means.
And I'm going to chalk it up to you having brain damage from when I fucked your mom with a purple dildo while you were in utero. Note that this is actually a high compliment to you. I'm finally admitting that you are a human being-- or at least a mammal-- instead of a hatched pod thing like everyone always assumes. You're welcome. Also, you're mom's an open source whore who gives it away for free. Share and share alike. Y'know.
@blakeyrat said:
Well, except this guy.
Oh, fuck Brett Diet and everything he stands for. He's 38 Hitlers.
