C:\PROGRAM
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@KillaCoda said:
There's a billboard near my house for a brand of rum...
What brand?
Ironically enough, I can't remember off hand. I'd know it if I saw it. I do know it's NOT Captain Morgan's, as I remember thinking the pirate was a blatant way to steal some of their schtick.
-
@KillaCoda said:
Captain Morgan's
Ugh, spiced rum..
-
@boomzilla said:
You say that now, but in 40 years you'll be singing a different tune.
Yeah, because I get a choice of catheter when I'm lying in the ER...
-
@dhromed said:
I personally prefer not to have my horizon (also metaphorically) polluted with a constant stream of bullshit.
Agreed, billboards are a visual nuisance. And I'm not getting anything in return, unlike with TV, radio or Internet advertising. So I feel no obligation to let people put them up.
-
@too_many_usernames said:
@boomzilla said:
You say that now, but in 40 years you'll be singing a different tune.
Yeah, because I get a choice of catheter when I'm lying in the ER...
I think they're for home use. Like people who are permanently cath'd and have to change them frequently..
Yeah, I'd kill myself first.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
And I'm not getting anything in return, unlike with TV, radio or Internet advertising.
Aye.
-
@dhromed said:
@KillaCoda said:
With web banner ads, sure, and I'm not sure what poor, misfortunate people are actually clicking on those "One weird trick to win at life!" ads.
It's not about clicking, it's the in-your-face-at-all-times thing.
@KillaCoda said:
I enjoy seeing that ad every day honestly. It makes me feel happy. More ads could be like that.
Glad you like it. I personally prefer not to have my horizon (also metaphorically) polluted with a constant stream of bullshit.
If they were constant I'd hate them. They're actually pretty rare around me, and they generally have something witty or enjoyable. If they were all advertising one weird trick to whatever I wouldn't like them.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@mikeTheLiar said:
@blakeyrat said:
Goddammit people. Fuck this.
Not my fault!You're still the "worst of the worst" in my heart.
You always know what to say to make me feel all warm and fuzzy inside.
-
It took me two afternoons to get through the 200-post riot you guys just generated. Well done!
-
@LoremIpsumDolorSitAmet said:
TDWTF Speed Reading Course: Flame War EditionIt took me two afternoons to get through the 200-post riot you guys just generated. Well done!
-
And I didn't even attempt to get through the rest of the other thread about feminism/gender misalignment. That clearly requires me to reach Level 2.
-
@boomzilla said:
@Snooder said:
So, if you listen to the radio and change channels when ads come on, you are defrauding the ad network. If you drive down the highway and avoid looking at highways signs, you are defrauding the billboard company.
No, the right analogy for flabdablet's ad downloader would be to inflate the radio station's listener estimate, as I believe that's how these things get priced.
Yeah, I got in the thread pretty late so I missed the part of blakey's post where he was talking specifically about an flab's suggested ad downloader.
@boomzilla said:@Snooder said:
And yeah, that business model breaks down when people start using adBlock. No shit. That just means that the consumers really don't want to see ads.They may have a social obligation to keep the status quo going, but they have zero legal or contractual responsibility to do so. And if enough consumers reject the "implicit" social obligation, it quickly ceases to be one, and it becomes incumbent on the content creators to find a new way to get someone to pay for their shit.
Yes, this is ultimately the main reason I stopped using ad blockers. I don't see it as fraud, but I prefer to help out the sites I use, and having their ads display is usually a reasonable trade off for me, especially since I seem to have blocked out the guys with the fakey popup flash links.
I haven't kept up on ads and how people are paid for hosting them. But I could see how blocking annoying ads and not blocking less intrusive ads could make the annoying ads less profitable. This assumes that sites get paid for their site displaying the ads or for getting clicks. Either way, if an ad is blocked, it produces no revenue for the site. If a large enough proportion of site users block the annoying ads, wouldn't this be noticed, giving an incentive for less annoying ads? Of course, some would take that as impetus to produce more intrusive ads to overcome the reduced response. But, doesn't this at least give the site owner the incentive to host less intrusive stuff, ceteris paribus?
I bring this up, because the most aggressive anti-ad blockers tell us that blocking ads sends the wrong signals to advertisers and those who depend on them, and it doesn't seem quite right. But I neither host nor serve ads, so I could be under the wrong impression.
Yeah, I turn off adblock on certain sites too. My point though is that contrary to what blakey and morbs think, that's not some legal obligation but simply a personal choice. And one that clearly enough other people don't seem to be choosing. It's dumb to respond to this (consumers making valid personal choices) with demonization and outrage. The content creators should be thinking of new ways to get paid for their work, rather than complaining that the old (not really that old) way has broken down.
Maybe it's a paywall. Maybe it's a subscription based model where a small number of paying customers with premium access subsidize the large body of non-paying customers. Maybe it's purely free content, supported by merchandise sales. Maybe it's the sale of consumer data. Hell, maybe it just means that he won't get paid and needs to go back to a regular job and keep the internet thing as a hobby.
-
@KillaCoda said:
@morbiuswilters said:
@KillaCoda said:
There's a billboard near my house for a brand of rum...
What brand?
Ironically enough, I can't remember off hand. I'd know it if I saw it. I do know it's NOT Captain Morgan's, as I remember thinking the pirate was a blatant way to steal some of their schtick.
Sailor Jerry's?
-
@dhromed said:
What if the ad producers don't realize it's because the ad is annoying?
Bullfuckingshit and they deserve to go out of business. Elsewhere in the thread, it was pointed out that advertisers are MASTER manipulators. There is so much focusing grouping, market research and psychography that goes into ads these days. The techniques are well known, well honed, and have been studied ad nausium (ha ha) for fuck near a century. Any advertising agency knows EXACTLY what makes a brain-lodgingly annoying ad. THAT IS THE ENTIRE PROBLEM! We have asked the advertisers nicely to fucking stop exploiting the unpatchable vulnerability in our brain. And they keep violating that social contract (see? that bullshit works both ways). So faith in industry lost, and BLOCKED.
@someone who asking this but I'm too arsed to find who said:
But what about content creators clicking "no flash advertisement" in their settings?!?!
Oh, they exist. You can set your preference on content, appearance, topic, etc. The problem is the ad networks lie. And the distribution neworks lie. And the ad resellers lie. And the advertisers themselves lie. And cheat. And exploit any weakness in order to get their ad/malware in front of your face, regardless of if you or the website owner wants it or not. Why do you think people say "ads are a malware vector". Because the third party content delivery system is used to deliver content no one else in the channel wants or was expecting. If you set your preference to NO_FLASH, then someone will still find a way to deliver flash. If you set your preference to NO_DATING_SITES, someone will still get dating site ads on your site by miscatagorizing the ad.
Case in point: Randall Millholland, guy who draws Something Positive. He specifically puts "no political ads" during election season, because every fucking PAC puts out bullshit propaganda/attack ads/outright lies. He doesn't want that shit on his site. And yet, every election season, the ads get there anyways because the advertisers LIE. They've got workarounds. They miscatagorize. They exploit. And BAM, fucking political ads. So bad it's to the point where he TURNS OFF ADS during election season.
Let me repeat that: someone whose main, if not sole, income is running ads is so fucked over by the ad networks that in order to avoid pissing off his readership (and thus, indirectly, his income), he has to go without a paycheck for nearly a month. That is real, 100% quantifiable monetary damage, and all directly attributable to the advertisers themselves, and how they act and behave and exploit and WHY ad blockers were created in the first place.
(Whenever that happens, I personally paypal him a chunk of change)
So what we've learned so far from the ad supporters is that advertisers are self-admitted manipulators. They literally don't care about anyone in the advertising chain, from the networks to the content creators to the ad viewers. The networks don't care, because they still get paid, and even if they squash one blackhat, ten more pop up. Some of those blackhats intend on doing real, actual harm with the tools at hand. And content creators are helpless to protect their readers/fans, but do provide alternate methods of compensation via direct payment, merchandise and paetron.
And that's from the PRO advertisers side. Am I missing anything?
-
@Lorne Kates said:
The networks don't care, because they still get paid, and even if they squash one blackhat, ten more pop up.
To be fair there are ad networks that care and attempt to keep bad/miscategorized ads out of their networks (as this means their network is liked better by content providers and consumers are less likely to block them), it's just that like blocking spam you are going to fail. If you fail less than the other guy though it can still be a competitive advantage.
-
@Lorne Kates said:
Bullfuckingshit and they deserve to go out of business. Elsewhere in the thread, it was pointed out that advertisers are MASTER manipulators. There is so much focusing grouping, market research and psychography that goes into ads these days. The techniques are well known, well honed, and have been studied ad nausium (ha ha) for fuck near a century. Any advertising agency knows EXACTLY what makes a brain-lodgingly annoying ad. THAT IS THE ENTIRE PROBLEM! We have asked the advertisers nicely to fucking stop exploiting the unpatchable vulnerability in our brain. And they keep violating that social contract (see? that bullshit works both ways). So faith in industry lost, and BLOCKED.
I think, as usual, you really misunderstand the idea of the "social contract", friend. Nobody is making you look at ads, but if you are going to look at my content, you are going to look at my ads. Because that's a voluntary choice, friend.
@Lorne Kates said:
Oh, they exist. You can set your preference on content, appearance, topic, etc. The problem is the ad networks lie. And the distribution neworks lie. And the ad resellers lie. And the advertisers themselves lie. And cheat. And exploit any weakness in order to get their ad/malware in front of your face, regardless of if you or the website owner wants it or not. Why do you think people say "ads are a malware vector". Because the third party content delivery system is used to deliver content no one else in the channel wants or was expecting. If you set your preference to NO_FLASH, then someone will still find a way to deliver flash. If you set your preference to NO_DATING_SITES, someone will still get dating site ads on your site by miscatagorizing the ad.
Miscategorizations happen, but usually not deliberately. Also, it's a matter of quality. If your site is more-or-less a spam site, then you will have crap ads. Big brands only advertise on good sites and that stuff is well-manicured to prevent harming the brand or the site.
@Lorne Kates said:
Case in point: Randall Millholland, guy who draws Something Positive. He specifically puts "no political ads" during election season, because every fucking PAC puts out bullshit propaganda/attack ads/outright lies. He doesn't want that shit on his site. And yet, every election season, the ads get there anyways because the advertisers LIE. They've got workarounds. They miscatagorize. They exploit. And BAM, fucking political ads. So bad it's to the point where he TURNS OFF ADS during election season.
He's probably using bottom-of-the-barrel ad networks. This is my point: you always insist on painting everything with a broad brush. Are there shady ad networks? Absolutely, just like there are shady auto mechanics or scummy insurance salesmen or sleazy pornographers. But that's not an excuse for you to then cheat good auto mechanics, friend.
@Lorne Kates said:
Let me repeat that: someone whose main, if not sole, income is running ads is so fucked over by the ad networks that in order to avoid pissing off his readership (and thus, indirectly, his income), he has to go without a paycheck for nearly a month. That is real, 100% quantifiable monetary damage, and all directly attributable to the advertisers themselves, and how they act and behave and exploit and WHY ad blockers were created in the first place.
He should find a better ad network.
@Lorne Kates said:
So what we've learned so far from the ad supporters is that advertisers are self-admitted manipulators.
Of course they are. Everything is manipulative, friend. You're being manipulative right now, knowingly overstating your case, tossing in lots of vitriol and emotion, and letting yourself get wound up in public.
I think in one of the discussions we had on this topic before, you stated that you don't think content creators deserved to be paid and you don't even think that you deserve to be paid for the job you do. I point this out because to me it illustrates that your problem is less with ads and that the real trouble lies elsewhere, and you are just using ads as a proxy for your anger at other problems, friend.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
friend.
@morbiuswilters said:friend.
@morbiuswilters said:friend.
@morbiuswilters said:friend.
@morbiuswilters said:friend.
I never knew Morbs was Canadian.
-
@locallunatic said:
@Lorne Kates said:
The networks don't care, because they still get paid, and even if they squash one blackhat, ten more pop up.
To be fair there are ad networks that care and attempt to keep bad/miscategorized ads out of their networks (as this means their network is liked better by content providers and consumers are less likely to block them), it's just that like blocking spam you are going to fail. If you fail less than the other guy though it can still be a competitive advantage.Absolutely. Also, the part that Lorne is leaving out, either because he doesn't know it or doesn't want to admit it, is that this is at least somewhat the content creator's problem. He's using a crappy ad network, possibly on accident, maybe on purpose. The webcomic he mentioned is probably trying to get a 100% fill rate, which means he's going to get a lot of shit. It's likely he could get better ads, but that would require him to have fewer ads. It's a trade-off and the decision he's made is one that I personally would not make, but then Lorne is using that as justification to block all ads, which is rather indiscriminate on his part.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
He's using a crappy ad network, possibly on accident, maybe on purpose.
Actually he uses one of the better ones. The thing is that the purposeful miscategorization happens a lot.
-
@joe.edwards said:
@morbiuswilters said:
friend.
@morbiuswilters said:friend.
@morbiuswilters said:friend.
@morbiuswilters said:friend.
@morbiuswilters said:friend.
I never knew Morbs was Canadian.
FUCK I broke Morbs. :(
-
@joe.edwards said:
@morbiuswilters said:
friend.
@morbiuswilters said:friend.
@morbiuswilters said:friend.
@morbiuswilters said:friend.
@morbiuswilters said:friend.
I never knew Morbs was Canadian.(At least until swallowing my rage gives me a perforated ulcer and I bleed out and die.)
-
@locallunatic said:
@morbiuswilters said:
He's using a crappy ad network, possibly on accident, maybe on purpose.
Actually he uses one of the better ones. The thing is that the purposeful miscategorization happens a lot.All I'm getting right now are completely respectable ads from Doubleclick. But that doesn't mean he's only ever running those. So what is your proof that he is 1) using a respectable ad network when the mis-categorization occurs; and 2) that deliberate mis-categorization in a respectable network is common? Please note I said "respectable network".
-
@mikeTheLiar said:
F*** I broke Morbs. :(
Please, friend; our language is the layer of clothing we show the world. What does your choice of clothing say about you?
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@mikeTheLiar said:
F*** I broke Morbs. :(
Please, friend; our language is the layer of clothing we show the world. What does your choice of clothing say about you?
That I'm a dirty, dirty girl.
-
@mikeTheLiar said:
@morbiuswilters said:
@mikeTheLiar said:
F*** I broke Morbs. :(
Please, friend; our language is the layer of clothing we show the world. What does your choice of clothing say about you?
That I'm a dirty, dirty girl.I object to this post on feminist grounds. At the very least, you should have included a TRIGGER WARNING.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@locallunatic said:
@morbiuswilters said:
He's using a crappy ad network, possibly on accident, maybe on purpose.
Actually he uses one of the better ones. The thing is that the purposeful miscategorization happens a lot.All I'm getting right now are completely respectable ads from Doubleclick. But that doesn't mean he's only ever running those. So what is your proof that he is 1) using a respectable ad network when the mis-categorization occurs; and 2) that deliberate mis-categorization in a respectable network is common? Please note I said "respectable network".
The miscategorization that I normally see are political ads that are about an issue in an election rather than for a candidate or such. If I had to guess it is because respectable networks will not due business with you if they find you are miscategorizing, but "you got added to a blacklist" isn't exactly a strong disincentive if the group is going to cease existing after the election. Most of the comics I read use things like project wonderful which is generally good about dealing with issues when reported. But I also don't use ad blockers and instead whitelist JS thus I break different networks in different ways so data points from me should probably be taken with a grain of salt.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
I think, as usual, you really misunderstand the idea of the "social contract", friend. Nobody is making you look at ads, but if you are going to look at my content, you are going to look at my ads. Because that's a voluntary choice, friend.
The problem with a social contract is that anyone can just make up one, assume everyone else will follow it, and change the terms at will. As you just did. Which is why they're bullshit.
@morbiuswilters said:
Miscategorizations happen, but usually not deliberately.
Except for when they do. Deliberately. So again, the ad industry's response is "Yeah, sometimes you'll get spam, scams, porn and malware. Nothing we can do about it. Suck it up." You see why that isn't an acceptable clause in a social contract? Would any site operator accept if my browser randomly ddos'd their site, and exploited an SQL injection attack to replace their content with mine-- but there's nothing I can do about it, so they should just suck it up?
@morbiuswilters said:
He's probably using bottom-of-the-barrel ad networks.
Yeah, those fucking shady ones like Google.
@View Source said:
<script type='text/javascript'> googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.defineSlot('/10195872/SP_Homepage_Leaderboard_Top_728x90', [728, 90], 'div-gpt-ad-1376672800195-0').addService(googletag.pubads()); googletag.defineSlot('/10195872/SP_Homepage_Skyscraper_Top_160x600', [160, 600], 'div-gpt-ad-1376672800195-1').addService(googletag.pubads()); googletag.defineSlot('/10195872/SP_ROS_Leaderboard_Top_728x90', [728, 90], 'div-gpt-ad-1376672800195-2').addService(googletag.pubads()); googletag.defineSlot('/10195872/SP_ROS_Skyscraper_Top_160x600', [160, 600], 'div-gpt-ad-1376672800195-3').addService(googletag.pubads()); googletag.pubads().enableSingleRequest(); googletag.enableServices(); }); </script>
You were saying, Morbs?
I think in one of the discussions we had on this topic before, you stated that you don't think content creators deserved to be paid and you don't even think that you deserve to be paid for the job you do.
Nope, that was Blakey's hyperbole of what I said. I'm not diving through a year old thread for a quote, but: I said no content creator has a RIGHT to EXPECT to be paid just for creating. I don't think anyone has a right to expect any business model to be successful, or continue to be successful. I said that if Alex tomorrow told me that site wasn't making any money and he couldn't afford to pay me for writing, I'd still do the writing because I enjoy it.
0/3, friend.
Absolutely, just like there are shady auto mechanics or scummy insurance salesmen or sleazy pornographers. But that's not an excuse for you to then cheat good auto mechanics, friend.
No, but it is a reason why mechanics all work like they're going to show up on the local news' latest hidden camera expose on shitty mechanics. You're either the one on the hidden camera, or the one talking with the reporter, pointing out everything wrong with the footage, and getting a free plug for your business of "good mechanic".
For the record, I have a good mechanic. He doesn't ever have to advertise because he just does good, honest work. He's guaranteed work until he retires, and none of his customers will let him do that.
-
@Lorne Kates said:
The problem with a social contract is that anyone can just make up one, assume everyone else will follow it, and change the terms at will. As you just did. Which is why they're bullshit.
Social contracts are something that non-sociopathic people understand instinctually. Quite frankly, I find it worrisome that you find the concept of adhering to agreements with other people so alien. I've come up with a million examples before, and you seem to ignore them all because evidently you cannot handle facts that contradict your extremely narrow-minded worldview, friend.
For example, there's no law against sleeping with a man's wife, but there is usually an understanding among decent people that it is wrong.
If I set out a bowl of candy for trick-or-treaters, there is no law against you walking up and emptying the entire thing into a pillowcase.
Once again, it's a bit disturbing that you feel that unless the government is there pointing a gun at you, then you don't need to act decently to other people. It's a very selfish attitude, one you would expect to see in a child. If you were my neighbor, I probably wouldn't leave my doors unlocked or unsecured property on my front porch as you seem to have absolutely no problem helping yourself to the fruits of other's labours.
@Lorne Kates said:
and exploited an SQL injection attack to replace their content with mine
Are you just making up lies again to support your sociopathy? Does your wife know what a dishonest person you are? It seems worrisome for her.
@Lorne Kates said:
Yeah, those fucking shady ones like Google.
I already stated that right now I was getting Doubleclick ads, which were completely above-board. But of course it's not at all possible that he might have used a different ad network in the past. Nobody ever changes anything. Not at all. (Oh, and thank you for your hysterical reaction. I think it really demonstrates the deep psychological issues which afflict your thinking, and explains your inability to form a cogent argument. Is this something you would like to talk about? I'm not a licensed therapist, but I am a very good listener and people often come to me with their problems.)
@Lorne Kates said:
I said no content creator has a RIGHT to EXPECT to be paid just for creating.
I'm pretty sure you said you didn't think you deserved to be paid. Regardless, there's a difference between expecting something to work, and suffering because people are stealing from you. I guess your opinion is that nobody has a right to expect not to be mugged, either. I'm sorry that your outlook is so pathologically anti-social. Unfortunately I do not know of any medication that can help with that.
But society can't really be expected to take the opinions of the ruthlessly anti-social to heart, can it? Among those of us who are well-adjusted members of society, your position comes off as grotesquely selfish and materialistic.
@Lorne Kates said:
No, but it is a reason why mechanics all work like they're going to show up on the local news' latest hidden camera expose on shitty mechanics. You're either the one on the hidden camera, or the one talking with the reporter, pointing out everything wrong with the footage, and getting a free plug for your business of "good mechanic".
For the record, I have a good mechanic. He doesn't ever have to advertise because he just does good, honest work. He's guaranteed work until he retires, and none of his customers will let him do that.
It seems you completely missed the point, again. I will feign surprise at this, if that would help your ego. I just want to help you make the transition from someone who is so clearly filled with rage against society into someone who is well-adjusted and happy. I promise, it won't hurt. You can thank me when you're enjoying your new life! :) :) :)
-
@morbs said:
blah blah blah
-
@KillaCoda said:
@morbiuswilters said:
@KillaCoda said:
There's a billboard near my house for a brand of rum...
What brand?
Ironically enough, I can't remember off hand. I'd know it if I saw it. I do know it's NOT Captain Morgan's, as I remember thinking the pirate was a blatant way to steal some of their schtick.I really don't think it matters if you remember or not. Chances are, a few people will end up at the store with rum in mind, and as long as their product isn't hidden, people will buy it. Sure, they'll prefer if you bought their brand of rum, but now that you've seen it you'll be more likely to gravitate toward it without even consciously remembering it or realising that's what you're doing.
-
@anotherusername said:
@KillaCoda said:
I think it's a little less subconscious than that. If you're presented with 15 choices of rum, each equally likely to be good or bad, and you've never heard the name of 14 of them, even if you can't even remember where or how you heard that name before, you'll be predisposed to try that one first.@morbiuswilters said:
@KillaCoda said:
There's a billboard near my house for a brand of rum...
What brand?
Ironically enough, I can't remember off hand. I'd know it if I saw it. I do know it's NOT Captain Morgan's, as I remember thinking the pirate was a blatant way to steal some of their schtick.I really don't think it matters if you remember or not. Chances are, a few people will end up at the store with rum in mind, and as long as their product isn't hidden, people will buy it. Sure, they'll prefer if you bought their brand of rum, but now that you've seen it you'll be more likely to gravitate toward it without even consciously remembering it or realising that's what you're doing.
-
@anotherusername said:
I really don't think it matters if you remember or not. Chances are, a few people will end up at the store with rum in mind, and as long as their product isn't hidden, people will buy it. Sure, they'll prefer if you bought their brand of rum, but now that you've seen it you'll be more likely to gravitate toward it without even consciously remembering it or realising that's what you're doing.
It's all a false flag by the police, anyway. They just want to hand out more citations for pantless karaoke singing.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
Nobody is making you look at ads, but if you are going to look at my content, you are going to look at my ads.
Nobody is making you serve content to my ad-blocked browser. Because that's a voluntary choice, friend.
Now, you might make the judgement call that locking your stuff down to the extent that an ad blocker spoils it is worth foregoing the increased brand awareness that a less restrictive policy would undoubtedly get you. That's fine, and that's a voluntary choice too.
But if you don't make that call, and then try to tell me I'm an arsehole for exercising the resulting ability to view your content ad-free, I will laugh in your clueless face.
-
@Lorne Kates said:
For the record, I have a good mechanic. He doesn't ever have to advertise because he just does good, honest work. He's guaranteed work until he retires, and none of his customers will let him do that.
OMFG a brand new business model. Why did we never come up with that one before? Quick, set up a focus group. We can sell this!
-
@flabdablet said:
Nobody is making you serve content to my ad-blocked browser. Because that's a voluntary choice, friend.
"Nobody is making you leave your window opened. It's your fault if I help myself to your stuff."
How does one become so pathologically anti-social? Please tell me you are seeking professional help. I'm worried about you, friend. Someone so mal-adjusted to society is a danger to himself, his family and others.
-
No reasonable person would consider fetching freely accessible content from a networked server in any way morally equivalent to the privacy invasion and deprivation of goods inherent in burglary via an open window. You know this, and yet you attempt to equate the two in what is clearly intended to be a persuasive argument?
-
@flabdablet said:
No reasonable person would consider fetching freely accessible content from a networked server in any way morally equivalent to the privacy invasion and deprivation of goods inherent in burglary via an open window. You know this, and yet you attempt to equate the two in what is clearly intended to be a persuasive argument?
You didn't answer the question; are you sure you're going to be okay? I'm just concerned about the well-being of your family. Is there somewhere outside of the house they can stay where they will be safe? Everyone just wants you to get better.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
nyah nyah nyah
Whatever, dude.
-
@joe.edwards said:
@anotherusername said:
@KillaCoda said:
I think it's a little less subconscious than that. If you're presented with 15 choices of rum, each equally likely to be good or bad, and you've never heard the name of 14 of them, even if you can't even remember where or how you heard that name before, you'll be predisposed to try that one first.@morbiuswilters said:
@KillaCoda said:
There's a billboard near my house for a brand of rum...
What brand?
Ironically enough, I can't remember off hand. I'd know it if I saw it. I do know it's NOT Captain Morgan's, as I remember thinking the pirate was a blatant way to steal some of their schtick.I really don't think it matters if you remember or not. Chances are, a few people will end up at the store with rum in mind, and as long as their product isn't hidden, people will buy it. Sure, they'll prefer if you bought their brand of rum, but now that you've seen it you'll be more likely to gravitate toward it without even consciously remembering it or realising that's what you're doing.
Very much so. I don't really drink rum that often but if I did, and I recognised the brand from the billboard, I'd probably buy it before an unknown one. I don't really find that wrong or shady, though obviously if they have a low quality product that'll only be one sale they get from me :P
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@mikeTheLiar said:
@morbiuswilters said:
@mikeTheLiar said:
F*** I broke Morbs. :(
Please, friend; our language is the layer of clothing we show the world. What does your choice of clothing say about you?
That I'm a dirty, dirty girl.I object to this post on feminist grounds. At the very least, you should have included a TRIGGER WARNING.
I'd like to finger your trigger.
-
@Lorne Kates said:
He specifically puts "no political ads" during election season, because every fucking PAC puts out bullshit propaganda/attack ads/outright lies. He doesn't want that shit on his site. And yet, every election season, the ads get there anyways because the advertisers LIE. They've got workarounds. They miscatagorize. They exploit. And BAM, fucking political ads. So bad it's to the point where he TURNS OFF ADS during election season.
I make it a point to click on the ads for candidates / issues / groups I disagree with, just in case there's some connection between clicks and payments. I request all of their free stickers and stuff, too.
-
@boomzilla said:
@Lorne Kates said:
He specifically puts "no political ads" during election season, because every fucking PAC puts out bullshit propaganda/attack ads/outright lies. He doesn't want that shit on his site. And yet, every election season, the ads get there anyways because the advertisers LIE. They've got workarounds. They miscatagorize. They exploit. And BAM, fucking political ads. So bad it's to the point where he TURNS OFF ADS during election season.
I make it a point to click on the ads for candidates / issues / groups I disagree with, just in case there's some connection between clicks and payments. I request all of their free stickers and stuff, too.
But what if they're measuring voter interest by clicks? You might be making them more attractive to potential backers!
-
@Lorne Kates said:
And BAM, fucking political ads. So bad it's to the point where he TURNS OFF ADS during election season.
Isn't the real problem with his stupid readers who get hysterical seeing ads for stuff they disagree with? What's wrong with these people? When I see a political mismatch on sites I like, I think it's great, because the "other side" is now funding people I like. It seems like fewer and fewer people can deal with even being exposed to a diversity of opinions, despite all of the noise about how important diversity is, because it brings together people with different points of view.
-
@boomzilla said:
@Lorne Kates said:
And BAM, fucking political ads. So bad it's to the point where he TURNS OFF ADS during election season.
Isn't the real problem with his stupid readers who get hysterical seeing ads for stuff they disagree with? What's wrong with these people? When I see a political mismatch on sites I like, I think it's great, because the "other side" is now funding people I like. It seems like fewer and fewer people can deal with even being exposed to a diversity of opinions, despite all of the noise about how important diversity is, because it brings together people with different points of view.
"Diversity" actually tends to mean "everyone being 100% the same". If you disagree or are different, you are "against diversity" :P
-
@boomzilla said:
Isn't the real problem with his stupid readers who get hysterical seeing ads for stuff they disagree with?
That particular comic author has no problem telling stupid users to fuck off. To their face. In public.
It's more the author not wanting his work associate with the political shit being hawked. It didn't have anything to do with ideology or party backing. It had to do with the style of ads. It'd be one thing if the ads on the side were "Vote for D: [platform blurb]", and "Re-elect vote for R: [platform blurb]". But it was half attack ads "D wants to murder your grandmother", "R believes in slave labor"-- and half straight up smear ads created by "arms length" PAC meant to discredit and smear, "D rapes babies, here's a photoshop of him doing that" and "R will slit your throat in your sleep, here's an animated gif of a beheading to prove it".
It's the same reason you wouldn't want ads for date-rape drugs, the KKK, and "watch beheading videos online now!!!~```!" ads next to your content. (I'm assuming not). Normally you'd report the ad and block the advertiser. But during election season, PACs on all sides throw so much money, and so many ads, in so many ways through so many shell companies using so many lies and miscatagorizations to sneak their ads out there-- that it's unavoidable. If you're running ads, you're running their ads. None of the advertisers care if they get reported or banned. They're effectively using throwaway accounts.
Again-- it's a systemic and deep-rooted problem with ad networks. There's too many levels of abstraction between content creator and advertiser to ever trust ads from third parties.
-
@Buttembly Coder said:
@boomzilla said:
@Lorne Kates said:
He specifically puts "no political ads" during election season, because every fucking PAC puts out bullshit propaganda/attack ads/outright lies. He doesn't want that shit on his site. And yet, every election season, the ads get there anyways because the advertisers LIE. They've got workarounds. They miscatagorize. They exploit. And BAM, fucking political ads. So bad it's to the point where he TURNS OFF ADS during election season.
I make it a point to click on the ads for candidates / issues / groups I disagree with, just in case there's some connection between clicks and payments. I request all of their free stickers and stuff, too.
But what if they're measuring voter interest by clicks? You might be making them more attractive to potential backers!
It's a risk I'm willing to take. Especially since it enriches their partisan foes. If my actions make this happen more, that's good.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@Lorne Kates said:
The problem with a social contract is that anyone can just make up one, assume everyone else will follow it, and change the terms at will. As you just did. Which is why they're bullshit.
Social contracts are something that non-sociopathic people understand instinctually. Quite frankly, I find it worrisome that you find the concept of adhering to agreements with other people so alien. I've come up with a million examples before, and you seem to ignore them all because evidently you cannot handle facts that contradict your extremely narrow-minded worldview, friend.
For example, there's no law against sleeping with a man's wife, but there is usually an understanding among decent people that it is wrong.
The problem is that people can disagree about whether a particular "social contract" that you subscribe to is one that they subscribe to as well.
To use your example of sleeping with a married woman, what if her husband is a wife-beating asshole? Or maybe he's actually a really great guy but they've grown apart and are in the process of getting a divorce. Or maybe they have an open marriage. Or maybe he cheated on her first and she just wants a quick revenge fling. Or maybe you've loved each other forever and she made a mistake when she married someone she didn't love. Maybe she's only still with him for the kids. Maybe he's gay. Maybe he's impotent, or has AIDS or for some other reason can't satisfy her sexual needs. Maybe he just has a really tiny dick.
Different people will have different answers as to the moral rectitude of each of those situations, and it's a sign of either arrogance or mental illness to believe that your answer to every situation will be or can be the same as everyone elses.
-
@boomzilla said:
@Lorne Kates said:
He specifically puts "no political ads" during election season, because every fucking PAC puts out bullshit propaganda/attack ads/outright lies. He doesn't want that shit on his site. And yet, every election season, the ads get there anyways because the advertisers LIE. They've got workarounds. They miscatagorize. They exploit. And BAM, fucking political ads. So bad it's to the point where he TURNS OFF ADS during election season.
I make it a point to click on the ads for candidates / issues / groups I disagree with, just in case there's some connection between clicks and payments. I request all of their free stickers and stuff, too.
I used to do that, sort of, to the CLDS. They'd run those late-night infomercials so I'd call up and get a free Book of Mormon delivered to a friend or family member. I wasn't doing it to bankrupt them, though, I just thought the people manning the phones at 4:00 AM would probably like it if someone called.
-
@boomzilla said:
It seems like fewer and fewer people can deal with even being exposed to a diversity of opinions, despite all of the noise about how important diversity is, because it brings together people with different points of view.
SHUT UP SHUT UP I'M NOT LISTENING
-
@KillaCoda said:
"Diversity" actually tends to mean "everyone being 100% the same". If you disagree or are different, you are "against diversity" :P
It's just silly, Bolshie nonsense-talk. I mean, a certain amount of diversity is great, but everyone has limits on the amount of diversity they want. The guy on the street corner who thinks the CIA is poisoning his milk with mind control probes has some pretty diverse thoughts, but they're not really useful. Neo-Nazis and Muslim fundamentalists are certainly diverse when compared to liberal, western society, but do we really care what they think? I don't.
It's like every left-wing trick in the book: it's meant to silence people they disagree with and elevate those who regurgitate their talking points. Remember how pro-free-speech the left was when they weren't in power? That support for free speech sure dried up as soon as they get into power, didn't it? Why I'm old enough to remember when dissent was the highest form of patriotism, and not evidence of wanting to exterminate all minorities! (It also happened, albeit to a much lesser, less-insane degree, when the Republicans were in power.)
And before somebody does the "Why do you hate diversity??" trick, please learn to read. I think a certain amount of diversity is fine, but the concept is usually used as a club to silence people. It's the "We need diversity, ergo no white people will be allowed to speak" scam, which is just as stupid as if only white people get to speak.
