Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.misc > #11468 > unrolled thread

Advertisers Should Pay You

Back to article view | Back to comp.misc

Contents

  Advertisers Should Pay You Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2016-07-10 15:36 +0000
    Re: Advertisers Should Pay You polygonum <rmoudndgers@vrod.co.uk> - 2016-07-10 20:08 +0100
    Re: Advertisers Should Pay You Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-07-10 19:31 +0000
      Re: Advertisers Should Pay You Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2016-07-10 21:50 +0200
        Re: Advertisers Should Pay You Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-07-10 21:17 +0000
      Re: Advertisers Should Pay You Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-10 22:30 +0100
        Re: Advertisers Should Pay You Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2016-07-11 09:07 +0200
    Re: Advertisers Should Pay You Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-07-11 13:22 +1000
    Re: Advertisers Should Pay You Mark Storkamp <mstorkamp@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-11 08:47 -0500
    Re: Advertisers Should Pay You Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2016-08-25 13:48 -0400

#11468 — Advertisers Should Pay You

http://www.philosophersbeard.org/2015/07/advertisers-should-pay-you.html

Quoting from the URL above:

   Advertising is a natural resource extraction industry, like a fishery.
   Its business is the harvest and sale of human attention. We are the fish
   and we are not consulted.

   Two problems result from this. The solution to both requires legal
   recognition of the property rights of human beings over our attention.

   First, advertising imposes costs on individuals without permission or
   compensation. It extracts our precious attention and emits toxic
   byproducts, such as the sale of our personal information to dodgy third
   parties.

   Second, you may have noticed that the world's fisheries are not in great
   shape. They are a standard example for explaining the theoretical
   concept of a tragedy of the commons, where rational maximising behaviour
   by individual harvesters leads to the unsustainable overexploitation of
   a resource. Expensively trained human attention is the fuel of 21st
   century capitalism. We are allowing a single industry to slash and burn
   vast amounts of this productive resource in search of a quick buck.

   ...

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#11474

On 10/07/2016 16:36, Rich wrote:
> http://www.philosophersbeard.org/2015/07/advertisers-should-pay-you.html
>
> Quoting from the URL above:
>
>    Advertising is a natural resource extraction industry, like a fishery.
>    Its business is the harvest and sale of human attention. We are the fish
>    and we are not consulted.
>
>    Two problems result from this. The solution to both requires legal
>    recognition of the property rights of human beings over our attention.
>
>    First, advertising imposes costs on individuals without permission or
>    compensation. It extracts our precious attention and emits toxic
>    byproducts, such as the sale of our personal information to dodgy third
>    parties.
>
>    Second, you may have noticed that the world's fisheries are not in great
>    shape. They are a standard example for explaining the theoretical
>    concept of a tragedy of the commons, where rational maximising behaviour
>    by individual harvesters leads to the unsustainable overexploitation of
>    a resource. Expensively trained human attention is the fuel of 21st
>    century capitalism. We are allowing a single industry to slash and burn
>    vast amounts of this productive resource in search of a quick buck.
>
>    ...
>
I have often felt that many advertising techniques are stealing my 
time/attention/bandwidth/whatever else. It ends with those who know how 
blocking as much advertising as they can, but that really doesn't 
address the underlying impact on society.

-- 
Rod

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11475

On 2016-07-10, Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote:
> http://www.philosophersbeard.org/2015/07/advertisers-should-pay-you.html
>
> Quoting from the URL above:
>
>    Advertising is a natural resource extraction industry, like a fishery.
>    Its business is the harvest and sale of human attention. We are the fish
>    and we are not consulted.
>
>    Two problems result from this. The solution to both requires legal
>    recognition of the property rights of human beings over our attention.
>
>    First, advertising imposes costs on individuals without permission or
>    compensation. 

Which is why I feel no guilt whatsoever about running Adblock+.

"I'll happily watch your advertising. How much will you pay me to do that?"


-- 
Today is Sweetmorn, the 45th day of Confusion in the YOLD 3182
                  I don't have an attitude problem.
    If you have a problem with my attitude, that's your problem.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11477

On 2016-07-10, Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
> On 2016-07-10, Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote:
>> http://www.philosophersbeard.org/2015/07/advertisers-should-pay-you.html
>>
>> Quoting from the URL above:
>>
>>    Advertising is a natural resource extraction industry, like a fishery.
>>    Its business is the harvest and sale of human attention. We are the fish
>>    and we are not consulted.
>>
>>    Two problems result from this. The solution to both requires legal
>>    recognition of the property rights of human beings over our attention.
>>
>>    First, advertising imposes costs on individuals without permission or
>>    compensation. 
>
> Which is why I feel no guilt whatsoever about running Adblock+.
>
> "I'll happily watch your advertising. How much will you pay me to do that?"
>

What was my local newspaper when I lived in the UK introduced anti-adblock
measures the other week, so I promptly closed that browser tab.

They've obviously had second thoughts, as I can read the site again,
uninterrupted.

-- 
When you have eliminated the JavaScript, whatever remains must be an
empty page. Enable JavaScript to see Google Maps.     -- Google Maps

Uh?  -- me

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11479

On 2016-07-10, Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> wrote:
> On 2016-07-10, Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>> On 2016-07-10, Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote:
>>> http://www.philosophersbeard.org/2015/07/advertisers-should-pay-you.html
>>>
>>> Quoting from the URL above:
>>>
>>>    Advertising is a natural resource extraction industry, like a fishery.
>>>    Its business is the harvest and sale of human attention. We are the fish
>>>    and we are not consulted.
>>>
>>>    Two problems result from this. The solution to both requires legal
>>>    recognition of the property rights of human beings over our attention.
>>>
>>>    First, advertising imposes costs on individuals without permission or
>>>    compensation. 
>>
>> Which is why I feel no guilt whatsoever about running Adblock+.
>>
>> "I'll happily watch your advertising. How much will you pay me to do that?"
>>
>
> What was my local newspaper when I lived in the UK introduced anti-adblock
> measures the other week, so I promptly closed that browser tab.

Yep. If "you" run anti-Adblock measures on "your" web-site, I simply
do not return.


-- 
Today is Sweetmorn, the 45th day of Confusion in the YOLD 3182
                  I don't have an attitude problem.
    If you have a problem with my attitude, that's your problem.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11480

Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> writes:
> On 2016-07-10, Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote:
>>    First, advertising imposes costs on individuals without permission or
>>    compensation. 

Risks, too.

> Which is why I feel no guilt whatsoever about running Adblock+.
>
> "I'll happily watch your advertising. How much will you pay me to do that?"

Remember to ask for indemnification against any losses resulting from
ad-delivered malware, too.

-- 
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11490

On 2016-07-10, Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> writes:
>> On 2016-07-10, Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote:
>>>    First, advertising imposes costs on individuals without permission or
>>>    compensation. 
>
> Risks, too.

Amongst which are those sites which say something like "By using this
site you agree to our terms and conditions of use" but can change those
at any time they wish.  While I'm reasonably sure that such statements
don't have a legal leg to stand on in any sensible jurisdiction, such
sites are trying to condition us to accept that state of affairs.

>> Which is why I feel no guilt whatsoever about running Adblock+.
>>
>> "I'll happily watch your advertising. How much will you pay me to do that?"
>
> Remember to ask for indemnification against any losses resulting from
> ad-delivered malware, too.

A rant about Javascript loaded from multiple sites:

<http://forums.theregister.co.uk/forum/2/2016/03/15/massive_us_malvertising_campaign/#c_2810120>


-- 
When you have eliminated the JavaScript, whatever remains must be an
empty page. Enable JavaScript to see Google Maps.     -- Google Maps

Eh?  -- me

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11486

On 11/07/2016 1:36 AM, Rich wrote:
> http://www.philosophersbeard.org/2015/07/advertisers-should-pay-you.html
>
> Quoting from the URL above:
>
>     Advertising is a natural resource extraction industry, like a fishery.
>     Its business is the harvest and sale of human attention. We are the fish
>     and we are not consulted.
>
>     Two problems result from this. The solution to both requires legal
>     recognition of the property rights of human beings over our attention.
>
>     First, advertising imposes costs on individuals without permission or
>     compensation. It extracts our precious attention and emits toxic
>     byproducts, such as the sale of our personal information to dodgy third
>     parties.
>
>     Second, you may have noticed that the world's fisheries are not in great
>     shape. They are a standard example for explaining the theoretical
>     concept of a tragedy of the commons, where rational maximising behaviour
>     by individual harvesters leads to the unsustainable overexploitation of
>     a resource. Expensively trained human attention is the fuel of 21st
>     century capitalism. We are allowing a single industry to slash and burn
>     vast amounts of this productive resource in search of a quick buck.
>
>     ...
>

It has insidious effects too. A well documented one is banner blindness.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banner_blindness

I find that I'm increasingly able to ignore the programme promotion 
banners that pop up during television broadcasts. What worries me though 
is that it seems that I'm achieving this by ignoring my peripheral 
vision. Not so good when one's driving.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11496

In article <P4pzZvlNJoSH6ZbfeDpSxGxY@dont-email.me>,
 Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote:

> http://www.philosophersbeard.org/2015/07/advertisers-should-pay-you.html
> 
> Quoting from the URL above:
> 
>    Advertising is a natural resource extraction industry, like a fishery.
>    Its business is the harvest and sale of human attention. We are the fish
>    and we are not consulted.
> 
>    Two problems result from this. The solution to both requires legal
>    recognition of the property rights of human beings over our attention.
> 
>    First, advertising imposes costs on individuals without permission or
>    compensation. It extracts our precious attention and emits toxic
>    byproducts, such as the sale of our personal information to dodgy third
>    parties.
> 
>    Second, you may have noticed that the world's fisheries are not in great
>    shape. They are a standard example for explaining the theoretical
>    concept of a tragedy of the commons, where rational maximising behaviour
>    by individual harvesters leads to the unsustainable overexploitation of
>    a resource. Expensively trained human attention is the fuel of 21st
>    century capitalism. We are allowing a single industry to slash and burn
>    vast amounts of this productive resource in search of a quick buck.
> 
>    ...

Remember when companies would hand out hats or t-shirts with their 
logos? Now people pay to be walking billboards, and even pay a premium 
if it's for a sports team or beverage.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11836

On 2016-07-10 11:36 AM, Rich wrote:
> http://www.philosophersbeard.org/2015/07/advertisers-should-pay-you.html
>
>  Quoting from the URL above:
>
> Advertising is a natural resource extraction industry, like a
> fishery. Its business is the harvest and sale of human attention. We
> are the fish and we are not consulted.
>
> Two problems result from this. The solution to both requires legal
> recognition of the property rights of human beings over our
> attention.
>
> First, advertising imposes costs on individuals without permission
> or compensation. It extracts our precious attention and emits toxic
> byproducts, such as the sale of our personal information to dodgy
> third parties.
>
> Second, you may have noticed that the world's fisheries are not in
> great shape. They are a standard example for explaining the
> theoretical concept of a tragedy of the commons, where rational
> maximising behaviour by individual harvesters leads to the
> unsustainable overexploitation of a resource. Expensively trained
> human attention is the fuel of 21st century capitalism. We are
> allowing a single industry to slash and burn vast amounts of this
> productive resource in search of a quick buck.
>
> ...
>
Advertising is complicated. They generally trade access to IP in
exchange for the ability to present their material. Advertisers that
steal IP instead of having a legal right to distribute it should be
liable for the theft back to the purchaser of the ad access.

w..

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.misc

csiph-web