Is it advertising if a community government makes citizens aware that bus service will be changing?
Is it advertising to tell people that there’s a suicide hotline available if they need help?
Is it advertising to encourage people to volunteer for a local festival?
What about telling people that the festival exists using a poster? Is that an ad? Does it depend if the festival is free or non-profit?
Advertising is just fundamentally about bringing people’s attention to something. The spectrum can range from a municipal government “advertising” its monthly meeting so that local people can participate in their local democracy, to spam emails hyping a pump-and-dump cryptocurrency.
Different people will have different ideas where the cut-off should be. The extreme libertarians will say that nothing should be banned. Others will say that it’s ok to ban ads for alcohol and cigarettes but not for makeup or coffee. Even totalitarian states and supposedly communist states where one entity controls all companies have ads. Some of the most striking ads ever made were for Mussolini.
So, the question really isn’t about banning ads, it’s just where to draw the line.
An increasing number of states are banning billboards along highways. Travelers do need a low tech method for finding certain services though, such as food, lodging, fuel and restrooms. So you’ll see those blue signs that says “FOOD NEXT EXIT” with a Waffle House and Burger King logo. In order to put the logo on that sign, the business has to meet certain criteria (which vary from state to state like all highway laws), for example a restaurant must be within 3 miles of the highway, be open for at least 12 hours a day and feature public restrooms and telephones. The sign itself may include a distinctive logo and the name of the business in legible font but no slogans or ad copy. “This burger restaurant is nearby.”
This I see as an appropriate amount of advertising.
It is a great example of how an industry can survive with only self-reported effectiveness. I remember a freakonomics episode where it was shown that very infrequently do companies get a positive return on marketing spending. It will be very interesting if that industry ever collapses.
They know. The fact that targeted ads leveraging so-called “big data” are not more effective than standard advertising is now known to the public. We can bet Google knew this years in advance. But they can’t abandon their whole business model since that would freak the stock market and investors out. So, they need to squeeze as much as they can before the entire model becomes unworkable and they’ll be forced to switch to something else or disappear.
Oh definitely. Its essentially a massive case of ‘it’s difficult to get someone to understand something when their salary depends on not understanding it.’
Same shit with Facebook claiming videos were the bestest content possible, using numbers sourced from the vicinity of their pelvis. Now every goddamn news site has autoplaying video for no damn reason.
Advertising is about creating trends, and catching some impulse buyers. Effectiveness is likely overstated, but on the other hand it’s difficult to quantify the effectiveness of a trend. I don’t think it’s likely to ever collapse, people will always want to believe they can influence others more than they actually can.
What happens to me now with Firefox and ublock origin is if i leave a video paused in the background for a long time and then it unloads it and then I click it to continue watching so it loads back up, then it plays an ad. I was legit like cat-confused because I haven’t seen an ad on the internet in years.
Same! I was taken aback and offended all at once then refreshed to get rid of the ad which thankfully still works… But for how long more is the question 😭
I’d gladly pay for a reasonably priced service (probably no more than $20/mo, but even that is on the steep side) where I could watch whatever game I’d like with no blackouts. Unfortunately, that doesn’t exist, so, here we arr.
Yeah, I wouldn’t mind just paying a season-pack for the sport that I’m interested in. Picking & choosing the competitions I want to see, and maybe having the option to pay for 1-off games. This isn’t possible though because networks/companies buy exclusive rights, so for one competition I need this subscription, for another I need this. It fucking sucks!
That being said, any recommendations on a good setup for live sports on a smart TV? In the past, I’ve streamed on a website on my laptop, and then plug in to my TV via HDMi. I’ve tried Kodi in the past but has been super unreliable for me for live-sports. Any other recommendations?
I can’t help much on that front. If I’d like to watch on the TV, I do the same and just cast from a laptop or PC. There’s IPTV, but it’s a whole other rabbit hole that I’m not familiar with.
Google will try everything in their power to stop us from blocking their ads. It’s their main source of revenue, you don’t have to be a genius to see why they don’t like ad blockers
Wouldn’t this show that they failed, if they have to recur to site-based adblocker blocking? Clearly v3 hasn’t stopped people from using Firefox, yt-dl, or whatever.
The Gecko Engine (Firefox), holds a user share of 4%. When compared to Chromium's (Google Chrome and its clones) whooping 72% (roughly) user share, it's clear that Firefox has limited relevance to their business strategy.
(according to latest statistics, Firefox would have an even lower share)
My point is: if v3 were effective at neutralizing ad blockers in 75% of the user base, or even 95% since Safari is supposed to get on board too, why are they developing additional countermeasures?
Or has Safari decided to do like Firefox, and still allow full ad blockers?
I reckon that blocking ad blockers isn't some extra countermeasure here. It's actually right in line with what Manifest V3 and that new environment attestation system are all about. They're basically making sure that if you tinker with crucial bits of the JavaScript -- stuff they see as essential (like anti-adblock) -- you won't make it through the attestation and you'll get blocked.
They don't want to block all modifications because that would be a hindrance to many users, for example the visually impaired. However, anything affecting their bottom line will probably be blocked.
How that will affect Firefox? I don't know, maybe nothing will change for us, or perhaps Google will block Firefox altogether. We certainly know they're capable.
Yes, attestation is in line with V3 changes, just that it makes them irrelevant: YouTube’s website could some day ask for environment attestation of “no extension using the intercept hooks”, or “only the approved ones”, and still have the same effect. The fact that they’re implementing a server-side anti-adblock now, while postponing V2 deprecation over and over, makes me think the V3 changes are a flop.
Firefox… would likely require Mozilla to play ball and implement similar attestation in an official binary attestable by the OS. Edge too, just so MS doesn’t mess with Chrome’s binary attestation on Windows.
Safari already has attestation, without extra parameters, but it could be extended:
It’ll be a shame if I have to ditch YouTube. There’s only 2 or 3 channels I would even consider paying for and they don’t have Patreon or anything. I’m less than interested in giving Google a cut.
Fair enough. The thing is, do I vote for the near-anarchists, that, save for the anarchism, align with my principles? Do I vote for the party that is further away from my ideological beliefs, but doesn’t have the anarchism, and is a bit larger? Or do I vote for the main opposition, which is even further from me ideologically (and doesn’t seem to have much of a clear vision)?
That sounds like a question about how much you oppose anarchy. Any change, involves some loss of established order, so if the Overton window tells us something, is that “anarchist parties” are just the ones trying to push it stronger. Actual anarchists, wouldn’t try to be part of a government in the first place.
Okay, but then we still have the problem of FPTP. If I’m in a Labour dominated constituency and I vote LibDem, my vote wouldn’t matter cuz Labour will win anyways. And if I live in a Greens Stronghold and I vote Greens, my vote wouldn’t really matter, as they would have won with or without my vote. The way I see it, your vote can only make a difference in a constituency where there is no clear winner, and it’s everybody’s game.
Please correct me if I’m wrong in my assessment of the situation.
Then you want to fight FPTP and vote pruning by constituency, to make your vote matter.
You could vote blank, or a poop emoji to show your disconformity, but organizing or supporting a protest to reform the voting system might be more effective.
If we counted all those who don’t vote because it “doesn’t change anything”, those who vote blank or null, and those who vote knowing their vote will still get thrown away… it could actually make a majority.
Is google that stupid that this will not bring on an onslaught of abuse to circumvent their false god status of the internet? I have already been “part 3’d” and completely bypassed it.
They get jackshit from me now at all. At least before they may have made some revenue from me for viewing the videos, now I am a ghost. No money for anyone. (and in case you are gonna say - I dont care content makers are losing, they are all dumbarses, and if they are supporting yt still and not posting elsewhere, then they are just stupid cunts. The only reason google is doing this is to make more money off of the people who make content, but not upset their already unstable revenue income. If the content providers get antsy and leave, YT loses.
I dont care content makers are losing, they are all dumbarses, and if they are supporting yt still and not posting elsewhere, then they are just stupid cunts.
You had me until here. If you want to monetize online video content or get widespread appeal, YouTube is pretty much the viable choice atm, save for Twitch which only works if you’re a streamer or Nebula, which even then it alone doesn’t suffice and is very specific. If you plan on trying to “make it big” using PeerTube, Vimeo, Dailymotion, etc. alone, your aspirations may as well be dead on arrival.
Not losing sleep over the money content creators lose over you using adblock is fine, I personally don’t put too much importance on it myself. But to call them all dumbasses or stupid cunts is just unreasonable, given the lack of a proper, popular alternative for most of them to do what they do.
I don’t agree with the name calling, but many content creators have already set a website, with some outside revenue sources like Patreon, selling merchandise, or other stuff.
They can’t leave the most popular platform, but they can set up alternatives for when it stops being the most popular, and in the meantime also target people who are leaving it already.
Oh yeah, I agree it’s a wise decision for any content creator, especially those who want to make a living from it, to diversify their sources of income. Backing up all content they post on YouTube to other sites as well is also really nice as it contributes to the push away from YouTube without having to risk little on their part as well
Once again for those who didn’t know or forgot: just like with every other industry making the same complaint, when they say that it “costs billions”, that’s true in the exact same way as losing a random lottery ticket would cost me millions: completely hypothetically.
In their calculations, every person who watches an illegal stream would, had the stream not been available, pay their ridiculously high prices to watch legally rather than not watch at all.
In reality, the opposite is many times more common and it’s frankly journalistic malpractice that mainstream media always just regurgitate that claim as if it was indisputably true.
Like with copaganda, they’re covering for predatory practices, in this case charging much more than your target customers can afford and then using draconian measures against those providing an alternative solution that wouldn’t have been necessary if the product had been reasonably priced.
I always call it Magic Math. There’s so much of it when you start learning about investing/trading. “Buying calls has infinite potential for gains. Selling calls has infinite potential for losses.” Like, yeah, that’s mathematically true. But at the end of the day it’s not practically true, you’re just putting a lot of weight on what you could be getting instead of what you are getting.
They claim that everyone would have otherwise paid for a subscription to watch it legaly. But that is simply not true.
When you could buy either variation of pasta in the store, where there is hundreds of boxes stapled, so price and availability are certain, you can speak of opportunity costs.
But here the elasticity is extreme. Many people will not buy this if it costs anything at all. Most probably would, if there is one service with reasonable prices where they can watch everyting. Some people are probably not able to watch a legal stream at all, because it isnt licenced to their country.
They did a pretty damn good job stamping out MLB streaming since last year. There's still sources out there but nowhere near as numerous or consistent as they were in like 2019 - early 2022
piracy
Najstarsze
Magazyn ze zdalnego serwera może być niekompletny. Zobacz więcej na oryginalnej instancji.