Ad Nonsense

I was trying to watch the Democratic Convention on Youtube. Trying to watch and failing to watch because the Orange Hate-Monkey had bought ads for the entirety of the event, and every time I tried to watch a part of the convention I had to look at OHM Bullshit as part of it. I have to watch ads from the mother fucker that I blocked on Youtube more than a year ago.

That’s the part that blows my mind. I have blocked Donald Trump on Youtube, but ads that run under his user identity on Youtube are not blocked from running. How does that make any sense at all, Google? If I don’t want to see that mother fucker’s face, if I don’t want to listen to his voice, why the hell would you think I might want to see advertisements promoting him? Why would I want to see ads denigrating the man who will be elected president to replace him? That is, if the OHM doesn’t get his henchmen to help him steal this election? Do you just want me to not use your service, Google? I mean, I could go to Prime video and watch the convention without ads, and I will probably look for the videos there if they are still up. If there are parts that I want to watch in the future.

You need to change the name of your integrated ad platform, Google. it is ad nonsense, not adsense. If it was adsense, I wouldn’t be seeing advertisements from Youtube profiles that I have blocked.

Money in the Internet Age

I keep getting links to The Wall Street Journal articles. This is a regular occurrence on Nuzzel, one of the news aggregators I rely on for my daily news. These links are useless to me; I never pass them on and I never read them. Why? Because  The Wall Street Journal has erected an impenetrable paywall around their site and I simply don’t have money to give to publications in general, being a person living in poverty.

Even if I had money I wouldn’t pay a subscription fee to most publications (except maybe The Atlantic) because 9/10’s of what they report is available on Reuters or the AP feed. Why would I pay to read stuff on  a newspaper’s website that can be read other places for less money? Micro-payments for specific articles, if I had money to spend, would be something I would agree to, but not subscription.

I won’t pay subscription fees for other cities papers. I’ve never paid for the daily paper in my hometown (currently the Austin American-Statesman) I have never paid a lump sum for delivery of a daily paper; a paper whose content is actually paid for by advertisers who want to sell me cigarettes or alcohol or some other addictive substance that I couldn’t afford to use even if it wasn’t addictive. I borrowed newspapers at lunch or listened to the radio (NPR) for my news.

After the internet became available I started reading more news than I had ever read before and my understanding of the world improved. But this understanding came at a cost to the journalists and publishers of the newspapers who hadn’t figured out how to monetize information consumption on the internet. They’ve tried, and failed, to make advertising work on the internet. It doesn’t work because people like me don’t want to be sold to. We aren’t here to be pigeons targeted by businesses that want to make money off our browsing habits, although many of us (including me) don’t mind if Google (Now Alphabet) makes money off our information in exchange for providing services.

NPR – Hidden Brain – Buying Attention

Unfortunately for most internet businesses, there’s only so much room on the internet for businesses like Google, and competing with Google is hard work. Ask Microsoft if you don’t believe me. So how are the businesses going to make money online if advertising (the backbone of information delivery since the invention of the printing press and the mural) doesn’t work online? If the internet is (as I say in The Information Tollway) a replacement for the library, newspaper, radio and television? We’re going to have to admit that everyone who lives and consumes in society deserves some kind of stipend, some basic cost of living allowance.

They deserve it, and we need them to have it, because their consumption habits need to be accounted for. The easiest way for this to occur is for them to be able to spend money for what they need, just like everybody else does. Go to the doctor? spend money. Go to the grocery store? spend money. Read an article online? spend money. I doubt we will ever evolve to not need money for accounting purposes, but it is pointless for us to continue believing that money comes from work when not everyone can work, and the most important work (raising children) continues to be done essentially for free.

In the meantime, places like the Times, the Post and the Journal will have to do without cash from people like me, because people like me have to save what little cash we have to keep roofs over our heads and food in our stomachs. We already economize with our health unless we have medicare, and the GOP tax bill will cause seventeen million more people to do without healthcare in the near future, if passed. So there will be more people getting sick and just ignoring it as time progresses. We will economize with our knowledge and understanding as well if forced to. You can see that in the #MAGA‘s (Misguided Appallingly Gullible Americans) election of people like the OHM and the GOP congress that is shafting the same misinformed people who put them there. But that is a story for another article. 

Dressed & Unimpressed

I keep being shown ads for Naked and Afraid. I feel like I should explain to the shows creators why this show doesn’t work for me and most of the internet. You don’t show us nudity because you aren’t allowed to on network television; and when I say nudity, I mean full frontal nudity as we might see in the 70’s issues of National Geographic. I mean, I can see more tits and ass watching reruns of Porky’s than I can watching that show, not to mention 24/7 full video pornography with surround sound if that is what I really want to watch.

Truthfully? I’ve never been interested in the show. The titillation factor is what the show’s creators bank on, though. They simply can’t deliver on that promise given current FCC regulation. The ads are eye-catching and they hype up the naked part, but the fact that they can’t show nudity on TV (well, nudity you don’t pay extra to see anyway) or won’t risk lawsuit from the FCC due to complaints from viewers (who tune in to watch for nudity) they are reduced to teasing potential viewers with the kind of raw nudity that they tune in like suckers to watch for and end up being disappointed every time.

We wear clothes for a reason. For many reasons, actually (I’m rather fond of pockets, myself) I really don’t need to see the kind of physical damage you can do to yourself by not wearing clothing out in the searing sun all day for months at a time. Keep your show, I’ll keep my pockets.

facebook

Postscript

Some old daily beef I missed publishing when it was relevant. 14 seasons of the show? Way more of it than there should have been. Way more than it deserved.

Daily Beef: Bing it On

Seriously, Microsoft? A Bing add every commercial break? Like GEICO, I have to wonder what funds are left over to provide any of the promised service after you have paid for all this advertising. Also like GEICO, no amount of advertising will ever get me to use your product. Unlike GEICO I can demonstrate my opinion of Bing using only it’s name if you simply bend over. Bing it on, indeed.

Don’t get me wrong, I could watch The GEICO gecko all day, every day. I just can’t stand the rest of the advertising that GEICO puts out, and there is so much GEICO advertising out there. Almost as much as Bing has been advertising lately.

Facebook

The real Flo, not that advertising Flo that hawks Progressive insurance these days.