First of all, him being the "president and CEO of the Interactive Advertising Bureau" renders any potential discussion based on that statement invalid anyhow.
Secondly, what is there to discuss in the first place? He certainly is free not to use any adblockers, just as everyone else is free to use (or not use) them as well.
Whats next? Discussing the use of black vs dark blue socks? Unless OF COURSE, he is suggesting to ban, block, "outlaw" adblockers. THAT would be a completely different issue and an actual war/attack on free choice, the very thing is appears to criticise.
Freedom of expression, diversity, freedom of speech aren't top items on advertiser's agenda. The only item is to put consumption above all else through huge sums of money.
Why is that in advertising, it is usually a woman that is depicted as
- a servant of men and children that reacts to the demands and complaints of her loved ones with a bad conscience and the promise for immediate improvement (wash, food)
- a sexual or emotional play toy for the self-affirmation of men
- a technically totally clueless being that can only manage a childproof operation
- female expert, but stereotype from the fields of fashion, cosmetics, food or at the most, medicine
- as ultra thin
- doing ground-work for others, e.g. serving coffee while a journalist interviews a politician
That's just one stereotype example of this big experiment, probably the biggest psychological experiment undertaken by the human race that only a few care about its consequences.
The reason that advertising and consumerism are necessary is that we have a system in place for people to coerce other people to do things, it's called the economy. What if people really did not need that much out of other people? Well then there would be unemployment. The psychological experiment is a socialization experiment to give everyone something to do, so that the system can run and distribute resources... more to some and less to others, depending on how much what they do is valued by other people.
Compare that to other systems, whether people are not working for stuff other people want. Everything is very expensive, and everyone is very poor. The system creates a certain order through this psychological experiment. Is that order good or bad depends on what outcomes you are looking for.
I love the mental gymnastics people like this perform to convince themselves of their own rhetoric.
It reminds me of the guy from the MPAA who not long ago said that BitTorrent (the protocol, and the company) and The Pirate Bay were 'an assault on on our human rights and civil liberties'.
Right. I wonder how many people he convinced by that utter manure.
Adorable how clearly the biases are written. Though I guess when you're preaching to a choir, that's the point. Isn't it?
>...They are the future of consumption. They are the future of advertising and media. They are your childrens’ classmates, your in-laws, the parents of your future grandchildren
"These people are close to you. You should care about them!"
>Now, you may be aware of a kerfuffle that began about 10 days ago, when an unethical, immoral, mendacious coven of techie wannabes at a for-profit German company called AdBlock-Plus
It's good to see that a few techie wannabes can kick their asses so hard (with technology) they have to go into a safe space to whine about them.
>The latest ad-blocking company is a Web browser startup called “Brave.” It was launched by former Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich, whose last major investment was in banning gay marriage in California.
Ah yes, let's bring something up from 10 years ago to try and discredit and slander against Eich. Brendan, when's the book about these events coming out? Your last post about it said you might write one in 18 months time. :) I'm sure a half-hearted statement with no intention to follow through, but I think it would be nice to hear your take on it rather than constantly hearing about it in a way meant to discredit everything you do.
>Surveys repeatedly show that upwards of 75% of consumers prefer ad-supported Internet sites where the content is free over ad-free sites where they would pay fees for content. Fewer than 10% of consumers want to pay for content. By driving digital publishers, including some of the most prestigious news organizations in the world, to impose fees on consumers in order to continue to support their business and content-development objectives, the ad-block profiteers are subverting the will of consumers.
Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit. If 10% of the consumers running ad-block are fucking you over so hard, something is wrong. If those 75% of ad-supporting consumers are supporting the companies via ads like they claim. What the hell is the problem? 10% does not a problem make.
>Remember that those users represent all races and creeds, and that their happiness success means your success and happiness, too.
Pander harder to the current ideological trend. Build yourself up as someone working for "the cause". I'll grab the popcorn for when you inevitably fuck up in a few years and the hoards come for your job and your head. As has happened to most every other crusader. I'm sure there is some dirty laundry airing out somewhere that someone will uncover.
It's a sad thing when noble causes get coopted for nefarious purposes by narcissists.
Secondly, what is there to discuss in the first place? He certainly is free not to use any adblockers, just as everyone else is free to use (or not use) them as well.
Whats next? Discussing the use of black vs dark blue socks? Unless OF COURSE, he is suggesting to ban, block, "outlaw" adblockers. THAT would be a completely different issue and an actual war/attack on free choice, the very thing is appears to criticise.