Not at all. Do not put shame onto me for choosing what I look at and don't.Hockey wrote:You too...shame shame...![]()
Shame on you for accepting blindly that things work the way they do, and for willingly accepting relentless advertising!
Most definitely. Free speech does NOT give you (or advertisers) the right to control what I hear and don't. It doesn't give advertisers the right to force me to sit through commercials, or control what I see on my monitor.Hockey wrote:Mr. free speech, open source, accesability advocate himself...blocks ads...![]()
Its entirely my choice to walk away from idiots chanting in a crowd, but you think its different on the internet?
There are only two purposes for Advertising: Brand recognition, and sales.Hockey wrote:I know none of those have anything to do with advertising...as I can't say myself that I have *ever* bought anything from clicking on a ad banner (although I have visited some sites and considered buying)...
Ads do not drive sales for me, or for most others (yourself apparently included). That means half of its purpose is a waste of time for the advertiser, and for me.
Brand recognition is the hope that if you know the name when you go to buy, you will be more likely to buy that product. (Testing has shown this to be overwhelmingly true). However, much like the annoying jingle on the radio, it can quickly backfire, resulting in brand hostility. Thats precisely what happens with ads that I cannot block. I become hostile to that brand.
Net result? Ads on the internet that I cannot block make the product *less* appealing to me - the exact opposite of what the advertiser wants. I'm simply improving their acceptance rate by blocking them. I'm making them more effective!
Ah, therein lies the rub!Hockey wrote:The Internet relies almost entirely on advertising...
Web sites like this one...I fail to see why it exists or rather how...who pays for the bandwidth? The Maintenance, etc???
I run a network of sites - over a dozen in fact - all out of pocket. The entire (linux) kernel.org distribution system, along with rpmfind, is entirely powered by volunteer donations. Wikipedia is entirely donation driven. The list is long, and proud.
In fact, when the Internet began, *everything* was powered without advertising. Advertising has creeped in since then, but the Internet does not RELY on advertising. The pipes would still be here, the data would still flow. Companies that want to sell product (Ford, Bud, precious delicious Mountain Dew) would still have their websites online even without advertising.
Perhaps sites like Slate wouldn't be. Maybe Slashdot would go away without ad revenues. Those individual sites are not the Internet, nor are the even "the web as we know it". They are a selection of sites that have chosen ad revenue because it is an attractive source of funding, that is convenient today. Thats the same selective pressure that causes Spam to be a force of epic strength. Take away that financial advantage, and spammers would go away. Similarly, if Advertising online became completely ineffective, there WOULD be replacements. Whether micro-subscriptions (ala PHP mag), network-subscriptions (ala AOL), donations (ala Wikipedia), or something entirely new (Wayne's world style product placements - Mmm, Mountain dew hits the spot!), the web would find a way.
We're not pretending. On the flip side, why pretend that the only choice IS advertising that doesn't do its job?Hockey wrote:Nothing will ever be *free* so why pretend like it is???
Plenty of sites (like this one) manage to be incredibly useful, helpful, and worthwhile, all without running a single ad. Whether its a single wealthy donator, or a million faithful wiki-donators, the net ran just fine without advertisers spewing their spam across my screen for years.
There is no reason why it cannot do so again.
Of course, it would change the face of the web today quite a bit - but if you think "Punch the monkey" can't be improved upon, shame on you.