A New Idea, For People Who Want To See More Banner Ads 167
Posted
by
timothy
from the y'know-as-y'do dept.
from the y'know-as-y'do dept.
Jacob53 writes "Scott Kurnit is a very bright guy. He founded About.com, and has raised over $8,000,000 for his new business AdKeeper. So, who am I to judge? But his new start-up sounds more like a Saturday Night Live skit than an emerging marketplace." As someone who actually enjoys a lot of advertising, it sounds only mildly weird to me — the basic idea is to let people easily archive ads they think might be interesting for perusing later.
Forget the article, submitter is weird (Score:2, Insightful)
The submitter "actually enjoys a lot of advertising"? What's wrong with them?
I suppose this might mean that submitter finds adverts funny, but we have to wonder - doesn't (s)he find them distracting? Doesn't the underlying message "you have to buy stuff to be worthwhile" get old after awhile?
Most of the people I know took deliberate steps to cut advertising entirely out of their lives, and that's been essential to feeling more peace/quiet/sanity. The technologies are there. Why wouldn't someone want to use them?
A New Idea... (Score:5, Insightful)
Disable your ad blocker. Ding, instant shitload of ads.
xjlm (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Forget the article, submitter is weird (Score:4, Insightful)
Being that you are likely a fan of scifi, why are you being judgemental of what other people enjoy?
Some people are masochists and really enjoy physical pain. There's nothing "judgmental" or otherwise faulty about saying that this is pathological. Something is wrong with those people. I don't care if pointing that out offends you because it's the truth, not merely a matter of taste or opinion.
One can only be "judgmental" (a thoroughly overused word) when there is a prejudice against one of two equally viable options. You're not being "judgmental" when you say that having $1000 is better than having $10, merely realistic. Thus, to claim that GP is being "judgmental" is equivalent to claiming that banner ads have as much literary and artistic value as a well-written sci-fi novel. If you think you can prove that claim, I'm willing to entertain your evidence, but until then I remain fully skeptical.
Some guy is free to enjoy ads if that's really what he wants to do. Others are free to think that's pretty damned strange. I don't see anyone advocating that either freedom should be taken away, so really what's the problem here?
Re:Forget the article, submitter is weird (Score:2, Insightful)
This is laughable. Not only is your position stupid, because I can just as easily challenge you to prove that advertisements do not carry literary and artistic value (hint: you can't prove this about anything, because those are subjective concepts), but you don't even remember what I said originally. I don't personally find any value in advertisements, and I have no desire to watch them. This has nothing to do with me trying to boost my ego by convincing someone else that my activities are OK; it is about me saying that you don't have the right to take a subjective thing you think, and declare that it is true for everyone.
It's really simple. Your premise is self-defeating. That's why you are not committed to your own premise.
If you were committed to your own premise, then when I say something is "pathological" then you would regard that as "my opinion, to which I am entitled" or "my equally valid perspective" or "my particular viewpoint". But no, there are opinions and perspectives and viewpoints you regard as valid and invalid. So you do adhere to an absolute reference. The problem is, that totally contradicts the position of relativism you advocate for those who do anything I would call "pathological."
Like I said, you are not prepared to apply your own premise to someone with whom you disagree. That's why it is not valid; it's merely a tool you use to paint with the same "right and wrong" brush you accuse me of using. Pot -> Kettle -> Black.
Quod erat demonstrandum.