Slashdot Mirror

Look at the protests we had last year and this year:

Seattle (World Bank/IMC)
Washington D.C. (World Bank/IMC)
Philadelphia (Republican Nat'l Convention)
Los Angeles (Democratic Nat'l Convention)

It's quite clear that Americans are becoming increasingly irritated with the way corporations have just "taken over" many aspects of our society.

Did you know that 100 years ago, the government could revoke a corporation's charter if they saw that the corporation was abusing its power? A century of slick corporate lawyers whittling away at this law has put it out of people's minds. (It's still in the books!)

I think the problem is that most people (at least in this country.. the U.S.) have become too complacent. They just roll over when told to. You look at many multinational corporations and they practically have rewritten the laws and have gone beyond national boundaries.

To find out how bad it's gotten, check out sites such as Adbustets. Corporations commit many crimes but only get slaps on the wrists. (Such as making a product and then when people get killed by the product, they just get slapped with a fine.) They get away with these things because people just shake their heads and look the other way.

Fialar

One problem is that corporations have been given the same rights as the individual. Before we can take our governments back, we need to change the laws and 'crack the corporate I.' There is an interesting article in the July/August issue of adbusters, which is also available here

Oh, and there is an interesting site on what can happen when a corporation gains too much power, as is the case with Shell-Nigeria.

Everyone has a right to be concerned about how powerful corporations have grown. Just a few bits of food for thought.

-as

I wanted to refer you all to a very moving article posted on Adbusters , about Death Penalties for Corporations.

DEATH PENALTY FOR CORPORATIONS COME OF AGE,
by Russell Mokhiber

Exerpt:
IN TWO SURPRISING RECENT CASES, A LAW SCHOOL PROFESSOR AND A CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE SEEK TO REVOKE THE CHARTERS OF CORPORATE LAWBREAKERS.

We know what the death penalty for individuals means: Commit an egregious crime, die at the hands of the state. What does it mean to talk about the "death penalty" for corporations? Simply this: Commit an egregious wrong and have your charter revoked. In other words, lose the state's permission to exist. It's an intriguing concept, because most of us never think about corporations needing anyone's permission to exist. But they do.

--
you are not what you own

The thought that keeps me up at night is: who's really benefiting from the new world taking shape? I mean, even the corporate droids at the top are still droids. Their lives are being stripped of meaning, too. I see the corporations as a new life form that is gorging itself on the old.

The thought that keeps me up at night is: who's really benefiting from the new world taking shape? I mean, even the corporate droids at the top are still droids. Their lives are being stripped of meaning, too. I see the corporations as a new life form that is gorging itself on the old.

The thought that keeps me up at night is: who's really benefiting from the new world taking shape? I mean, even the corporate droids at the top are still droids. Their lives are being stripped of meaning, too. I see the corporations as a new life form that is gorging itself on the old.

As an individual I might want to get a message out, something like "I Love You, Carolyn. Bob.", but I'm not sure that advertising is the right vehicle for that...Democracy is for governments, advertising is for corporations.

We've come to accept advertising as strictly a means for big business to inspire consumption. (Apart from the occasional federally-mandated PSA.) The reason other messages aren't heard isn't just from lack of funds, but corporate control of the means of advertising. (For example, the three major networks declined to air Adbuster's uncommercials.)

That's why to many of us, "advertisement" has become a dirty word; why we install Junkbuster, and hit the mute button on the TV remote when they break for commerical. We're not being informed about products we might find useful, we're being manipulated. Does it have to be that way? Or can we have advertising-supported media with more messages than "Buy this, buy that, it's cool to buy stuff"? I dunno. But I think it might be worthwhile to give it a shot.

P.S. Although I do admit that the line between governments and corporations is blurring!

As an individual I might want to get a message out, something like "I Love You, Carolyn. Bob.", but I'm not sure that advertising is the right vehicle for that...Democracy is for governments, advertising is for corporations.

We've come to accept advertising as strictly a means for big business to inspire consumption. (Apart from the occasional federally-mandated PSA.) The reason other messages aren't heard isn't just from lack of funds, but corporate control of the means of advertising. (For example, the three major networks declined to air Adbuster's uncommercials.)

That's why to many of us, "advertisement" has become a dirty word; why we install Junkbuster, and hit the mute button on the TV remote when they break for commerical. We're not being informed about products we might find useful, we're being manipulated. Does it have to be that way? Or can we have advertising-supported media with more messages than "Buy this, buy that, it's cool to buy stuff"? I dunno. But I think it might be worthwhile to give it a shot.

P.S. Although I do admit that the line between governments and corporations is blurring!

The Recording Industry Association of America is the trade group that represents the U.S. recording industry.

The Recording Industry Association of America is the trade group that represents the U.S. recording industry.

I know this may sound a bit cynical, but I'd think that Microsoft would see this coming and create something similar, with more flexibility than Macromedia's technology, but it would be free and totally proprietary. Kind of like Quicktime, actually. The scenario I describe sounds very similar to the Netscape vs Microsoft thing. Netscape owns the market, Microsoft comes in, forces their browser on everyone, and Netscape withers. And when has Microsoft even followed standards, except those already widely accepted? If HTML wasn't standard before IE, IE would have a totally different markup language.

My point is that Microsoft will always try to use their existing market advantages to draw more capital and gain more power. If Microsoft makes another windows-only "industry standard," even if it is a mangled version of this proposed standard, and makes everything needed to use/create with this technology, Macromedia will go away, standards will be ignored, and Microsoft will get another tentaclehold.

This is why Microsoft is evil; not because of its shoddy software, but because its only motivation is greed, as is such for any corporate entity. Oh well.

It's Time to Crack the Corporate I:
http://adbusters.org/campaigns/corporate/

1. As much as it may or may not work w/ the gov't, we have no Constitution to protect us from the actions of corporations.
   
   
2. Corporations work to increase profit. Thats is all. They almost always only embrace other actions when it will work for them financially short or long term. When a corporation makes a a social action not related to immediate profit, the motive is to increase positive mindshare among consumers so that the corporation will continue to exist and make money. This gives them little incentive other than fear to have any concern for workers rights, the environment, or the social fabric of the communities that they impact (how many small restaurants has McDonalds shut down? what about Target or Wal-Mart and the number of independent shopowners that they have thrown out of business?)
   
   
3. http://www.adbusters.org/ | for some more information - these guys put together some strong words and graphics that frame this discussion in contemporary terms

Quick summary: In 1998 March, a kid at a school wore a Pepsi shirt on "Coke Day", when his school was trying to win some contest for most Coke-themed day or something. He was suspended for "disruption" and for ruining the picture they were trying to take. It's a pretty sorry story, actually.

Here's list of links to stories on the affair:

http://www.adbu sters.org/campaigns/commercialfree/toolbox/coke.ht ml
http://www.corpwa tch.org/trac/corner/worldnews/other/other122.html
http://www.sjmercury.com/digita lhigh/news/coke98.htm

The only thing i don't understand, is what does "this space to let." mean? I was thinking it meant "this space for rent.", but I got confused. As for the slogan, I think "The eyes never lie." is the best one out of those. Wow that is damn cool, a lot better than the stuff on adbusters

Ads are so much a part of our world now that when they're gone, it feels like something's gone wrong. Creepy...

Customers have demonstrated that they may be manipulated into spending choices by playing upon their emotions, anxieties, and desires.

The sad corollary to Mr Lincoln's observation

"You can fool all of the people some of time and you can fool some of the people all of time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time."

"You can fool enough of the people enough of the time."

This is as true for the political and governmental choices that you think you are making independently, as it is true for spending and buying decisions, as it is true for decisions of how you spend your leisure time (plugged into the TV/Matrix perhaps?).

For some interesting perspectives on this theme, see, for example Adbusters., which is typically available at one of your more complete magazine racks.

Next time you watch or read a slick ad for a computer product, pay a little closer attention and watch which of your buttons (or your bosses) they're pushing -- it's interesting in that they're not the dreary objective ones!

Adbusters' article on "Ecological Economics".

Adbusters' article on "Ecological Economics".

Even if I knew that *my* vote would be the deciding vote that put Bush in the whitehouse over Gore, I'd *still* vote for Ralph Nader. The thoughts of throwing my vote away by voting for a Republicrat is just too depressing. I wanna see Ralph get more than 5% this year and put the Green Party, and more importantly it's issues, on the map.

That's exactly how I feel. (Interestingly enough, a pseudorandom friend I was talking to the other day said roughly the same thing.)

It's great to know that I'm not the only one.

Now, if 5% of voters would vote for Nader, that's 1 in 20. So, if each of them successfully bugged 19 others to look at the site... (of course, nearly 5% of those others would already be voting for Mr. Nader.)

<shameless plug>

Anyone whose curiosity is piqued should check out Adbusters (especially this page) and the Ralph Nader campaign site.

</shameless plug>

Even if I knew that *my* vote would be the deciding vote that put Bush in the whitehouse over Gore, I'd *still* vote for Ralph Nader. The thoughts of throwing my vote away by voting for a Republicrat is just too depressing. I wanna see Ralph get more than 5% this year and put the Green Party, and more importantly it's issues, on the map.

That's exactly how I feel. (Interestingly enough, a pseudorandom friend I was talking to the other day said roughly the same thing.)

It's great to know that I'm not the only one.

Now, if 5% of voters would vote for Nader, that's 1 in 20. So, if each of them successfully bugged 19 others to look at the site... (of course, nearly 5% of those others would already be voting for Mr. Nader.)

<shameless plug>

Anyone whose curiosity is piqued should check out Adbusters (especially this page) and the Ralph Nader campaign site.

</shameless plug>

Perhaps we have the means to realize this now. With the ability to manage huge amounts of data, surely we can keep track of and reward the individual authors of works, instead of the publishers they deal with?

Under current US law, corporations have the same rights as individuals. Adbusters ran an article last year about this odd quirk of law. Unlike individuals, corporations can be immortal. Corporations are not motivated by the same things as people. That doesn't make them evil per se, but it does often make them natural enemies of most individuals. To give them the same rights (such as being able to own information) is a grave mistake.

Perhaps we have the means to realize this now. With the ability to manage huge amounts of data, surely we can keep track of and reward the individual authors of works, instead of the publishers they deal with?

Under current US law, corporations have the same rights as individuals. Adbusters ran an article last year about this odd quirk of law. Unlike individuals, corporations can be immortal. Corporations are not motivated by the same things as people. That doesn't make them evil per se, but it does often make them natural enemies of most individuals. To give them the same rights (such as being able to own information) is a grave mistake.

What does it mean to talk about the "death penalty" for corporations? Simply this: Commit an egregious wrong and have your charter revoked. In other words, lose the state's permission to exist. It's an intriguing concept, because most of us never think about corporations needing anyone's permission to exist. But they do.

I keep seeing these draconian laws being passed by our government, and these orwellian systems being created and implemented by profit- and power-hungry corporations. It seems every day there's a different post to Slashdot describing some new method for controlling the flow of information and the freedoms that we should be taking for granted...

And what are we doing about it? Why do we keep allowing our rights and freedoms to be taken away?

Why are those in power doing this to us? That's easy to answer: Because they can. Because anybody in power will seek to extend their power and control.

Why are we allowing this to happen? I don't know. Some of us are fighting back as much as we can, but most of us simply post to Slashdot and complain.

Listen up! All this bullshit that we've been fed ("We live in a free country!", "The economy is doing great!"), it's all just that: bullshit! We're losing our rights and freedoms on a daily basis, our economy is fake (the drop on last Friday was equivalent to Black Tuesday in 1929), people all over the world are being forced into sweatshop slavery in the name of "economic progress", and our environment is being raped and destroyed at an alarming rate in the name of profit.

And most importantly? The technology that we all love and support is being turned back on us in order to control and monitor people. They're usurping something that they have no right to usurp. We have to put the power of technology back into the hands of the people!

It's time to fight back! It's time for a revolution!

http://www.indymedia.org - Support independant media!
http://www.soaw.org - Why are our tax dollars being spent on training murderers?
http://www.corpwatch.org - So you think only governments can oppress and censor?

http://www.spunk.org
http://www.infoshop.org - Communism is dead, Capitalism is close to it. There is another alternative, and it's time we started exploring it.

http://www.adbusters.org
http://www.rtmark.com
http://www.subvertise.org - Subvertising (also known as adbusting) at it's best.

http://www.ainfos.ca - Keep informed on what is happening in the world, from an anti-authoritarian, grassroots perspective.

http://www.a16.org - Seattle and D.C. are just the beginning.
Michael Chisari
mchisari@usa.net

This seemed apt.

(It's hard to see in the image, but the thing on the back of the guy's neck in the rightmost frame is is a barcode.)

I think that if these machines are going to be used for market research, the networks should pay the bill, and they should be free to everyone.

You're getting worked up over market research? It's a far sight better than my television, which is in my home solely to do marketing[1]. Don't you think commercials -- the real point of television -- are reason enough we should be getting the damn things for free?

[1] well, it would be if I used it to do anything other than watch movies and play Tetris Attack.

The Product is Laborit

The bad do bad because the bad is rewarded. The good do good because the good is rewarded.

-From Adbusters: Channel One Advertisement:"...Channel One is a 12-minute news program broadcast daily to over 7.8 million students in 12,000 US schools. Channel One describes itself as a "free" service, while selling four, 30-second spots per show at $200,000 each, to companies such as Nike, Nintendo, Pepsi and Burger King."
I highly suggest interested folks visit Adbusters and read the sections on advertising in schools...
/rant
-Ryan-

-From Adbusters: Channel One Advertisement:"...Channel One is a 12-minute news program broadcast daily to over 7.8 million students in 12,000 US schools. Channel One describes itself as a "free" service, while selling four, 30-second spots per show at $200,000 each, to companies such as Nike, Nintendo, Pepsi and Burger King."
I highly suggest interested folks visit Adbusters and read the sections on advertising in schools...
/rant
-Ryan-

This is absolutely unacceptable.

The ability to distribute information through the population is critical to the maintainence and control of society, and allowing it to come into the hands of those whose stated purpose is making shareholders (i.e. not regular people, workers, the environment, etc) happy can only be dangerous.

Implicitly, if that one party gets control over things, the rest of us tend to get screwed over -- after all, they are looking after their interests, not yours and mine. Why would they bother to do anything that helps the other 90% of the American and 99% of the global population, unless maybe it happens to be as a side effect of an activity that is otherwise purely profitable to themselves.

The mass media are already too homogenous. It's bread & circuses all over again: we get fed a steady diet of nothing worth watching, and not enough people are complaining about it. And while, yes, the digital new media are somewhat immune to the influence of the old media, still the danger is present.

We really can't ignore this or allow it to go unchecked. Read up. Read Noam Chomsky's "Manufacturing Consent". Listen to Disposeable Heroes of Hiphoprisy's Drug of a Nation. Watch C-Span rather than Jerry Springer; Adbusters rather (or in additon to ;-) Slashdot; wave signs, write letters, make web pages, consider civil disobedience and acts of anarchy a la "Fight Club" -- but whatever you do, fight back and make a difference.

We need it, badly. We're on the wrong track these days...

I'd write more, and more cogently, but I'm too tired right now...

My favorite is the one for Obsession

Prion

My favorite is the one for Obsession

Prion

However, more and more people who circumvent this "damage" are no longer damamge control experts, but criminals.

The way our present society and present government treats corporations is ass backwards. Individual rights should come before the rights of corporations, not vice-versa. Collectively, groups of individuals should dictate the terms of what is allowable for corporations to do. Unfortunatly, the situation has been as such for so long that it's simply accepted.

I think one of the tools that we actually have now that is far, far under-exercised is the power to revoke a corporations charter. See this adbusters article for more information about the revokation of corporate charters.

However, as time goes on, more and more power is being shifted away from individuals and their elected representatives, and more towards corporations. Remember, though, that as much money as corporations can put into a politician's war chest, corporations can't vote. If inform voters, and get more of the elgiable public to vote, we can "throw the bums out" and get the law working back in the favor of the individual.

Thanks go out to Time-Warner/AOL/Whore of Babylon, the RIAA, the MPAA, the DVD Consortioum, and the politicians who have sold our best interests to the highest bidder and best funded lobbyist by passing the DMCA.

That's the question that needs to be looked at here. What can we, as a group, as a rising political force do to stop this?

Be careful to remember something: The powers that be ("Power Elite" according to C. Wright Mills, "Ruling Class" according to Marx and Bakunin) like computer geeks right now. They think that we're interesting little beings that do things they don't understand and make them lots of money doing it. But we could very easily fall out of favor with them very quickly. All it takes is some good ol' fashioned free speech to make them revile us more than independant organic farmers.

Right now, we keep basically silent. We may post to Slashdot or usenet and bitch and complain, but the Power Elite/Ruling Class don't read Slashdot or Usenet, because they can't control it (yet, be cautious, Andover). Once we start to speak out against the decisions they're making about the way we conduct our lives, they will hit us. And the louder we speak out, the harder they will hit us. This is the way it is, and has been for centuries.

Now, don't let me discourage you or anybody who's interested in making themselves heard. Quite the opposite, I think that's what needs to be done. Here's a few suggestions that I can think of:

Forget emailing or writing your senator. Honestly, when has that ever really worked? Instead, stage a sit-in protest in his office. Force your way in, and refuse to leave until he hears you out. Notify the press. Bring U-Locks and lockboxes in case they try to drag you out. Contact people from the Ruckus Society or Direct Action Network to learn more about how to plan such an action, and what your legal options are.

Print up some honest-to-goodness propaganda. Check out Subvertise or (if you're really talented) Adbusters for some inspiration. My belief about propaganda is that it should be radical and in people's faces. Don't sugarcoat things, and don't be afraid to challenge people's concept of what's right and wrong. A poster that screams "Copyright Is Theft!" or "Information Wants To Be Free!" is going to intrigue people a lot more than one that says "We think that the DMCA is dangerous to the free software community because of the implications blah blah blah".

Third, there's going to be a lot going on in Washington, D.C. on April 16th. Remember Seat tle? Well, this should be even better. Get your butt out there and make a case against the monopolization of intellectual property. You may want to learn about more of what's going on (it's not just software that IP affects), such as the situation with AIDS drugs in Africa, or the patenting of crops by Monsanto. Also remember that the people protesting are not against globalization (well, unless you count Pat Buchanen as a protester). What we're opposed to, to varying degrees, is corporate rule, greed, and how the Power Elite/Ruling Class are using the idea of "globalization" not to open borders for the prosperity of all, but to create a new form of colonialization. Intellectual property is one major way that they're doing this.

These are a few of the options. I know you said that we should work from inside the system, and that's fine and dandy, but the truth of the matter is that direct action gets the goods. You have to get in people's faces, make them feel a little squeamish (or sometimes downright terrified if the situation is urgent enough), and force them to deal with the issues on *your* terms, without the benefit of having a speech writer churn out the BS beforehand.

Michael Chisari

That's the question that needs to be looked at here. What can we, as a group, as a rising political force do to stop this?

Be careful to remember something: The powers that be ("Power Elite" according to C. Wright Mills, "Ruling Class" according to Marx and Bakunin) like computer geeks right now. They think that we're interesting little beings that do things they don't understand and make them lots of money doing it. But we could very easily fall out of favor with them very quickly. All it takes is some good ol' fashioned free speech to make them revile us more than independant organic farmers.

Right now, we keep basically silent. We may post to Slashdot or usenet and bitch and complain, but the Power Elite/Ruling Class don't read Slashdot or Usenet, because they can't control it (yet, be cautious, Andover). Once we start to speak out against the decisions they're making about the way we conduct our lives, they will hit us. And the louder we speak out, the harder they will hit us. This is the way it is, and has been for centuries.

Now, don't let me discourage you or anybody who's interested in making themselves heard. Quite the opposite, I think that's what needs to be done. Here's a few suggestions that I can think of:

Forget emailing or writing your senator. Honestly, when has that ever really worked? Instead, stage a sit-in protest in his office. Force your way in, and refuse to leave until he hears you out. Notify the press. Bring U-Locks and lockboxes in case they try to drag you out. Contact people from the Ruckus Society or Direct Action Network to learn more about how to plan such an action, and what your legal options are.

Print up some honest-to-goodness propaganda. Check out Subvertise or (if you're really talented) Adbusters for some inspiration. My belief about propaganda is that it should be radical and in people's faces. Don't sugarcoat things, and don't be afraid to challenge people's concept of what's right and wrong. A poster that screams "Copyright Is Theft!" or "Information Wants To Be Free!" is going to intrigue people a lot more than one that says "We think that the DMCA is dangerous to the free software community because of the implications blah blah blah".

Third, there's going to be a lot going on in Washington, D.C. on April 16th. Remember Seat tle? Well, this should be even better. Get your butt out there and make a case against the monopolization of intellectual property. You may want to learn about more of what's going on (it's not just software that IP affects), such as the situation with AIDS drugs in Africa, or the patenting of crops by Monsanto. Also remember that the people protesting are not against globalization (well, unless you count Pat Buchanen as a protester). What we're opposed to, to varying degrees, is corporate rule, greed, and how the Power Elite/Ruling Class are using the idea of "globalization" not to open borders for the prosperity of all, but to create a new form of colonialization. Intellectual property is one major way that they're doing this.

These are a few of the options. I know you said that we should work from inside the system, and that's fine and dandy, but the truth of the matter is that direct action gets the goods. You have to get in people's faces, make them feel a little squeamish (or sometimes downright terrified if the situation is urgent enough), and force them to deal with the issues on *your* terms, without the benefit of having a speech writer churn out the BS beforehand.

Michael Chisari

This sounds perfectly logical to me. You cant watch TV, surf a page drive down the street etc. without getting spammed. Why should cell phones be any different.

We will just mentally tune the cell ads out just like we do on television. Hopefully lower prices will be the end result.

Let's look at an example. Say you've got one of these cellphones with targeted advertising and discount net access. You're walking by the candy aisle of the supermarket when it lights up with an ad for M & Ms, which you happen to see.

Now, before you saw that ad, you didn't want M & Ms - if you did, they'd already be in your cart, right? You know that they'll help rot your teeth, raise your blood sugar, and add to that spare tire around your middle. But now you have been influenced by that ad, you figure the sweet, sweet taste of chocolate is worth it. The M & Ms go into the shopping cart.

("But I don't let ads influence me!" you cry. That's what they all say, chief, and yet advertising is effective. It's influencing somebody.)

Up at the cashier, you pay for your junk food. And included in the price is a markup that's part of the Mars corporations advertising budget - you just paid for part of your phone's net access.

But you'll be paying more, of course: at the dentist's office, to treat the cavity that you wouldn't have gotten if you hadn't bought those M & Ms -and you wouldn't have bought them without the ad on your cell phone.

Let's get it straight, my friends: 90 percent of advertising wants to influence you into making unhealthy and wasteful choices. It is your enemy.

Think I'm parnoid? Read a few issues of Adbusters to find out what really goes on in the world of advertising, then decide if exposing yourself to more ads is really a good idea.

how about indymedia?
adbusters
the onion :-)
would slashdot be considered an alternative media source? probably?
anyone else got some good outside-the-mainstream media sources?
I don't know about you, but i still get all my news from everything 2 :-)

I think it would mean that the Internet had completely succumbed to Banner Ads, SPAM, one-click shopping, TV (streaming Video) and other nonsense. It would mean that the Internet is nothing but a commercial vehicle.

That's the wonderful thing about Usenet. It connected people everywhere with similar interests and there was no question about commercialism.

In a way, Usenet was a "free ride" for people to connect without paying anything. Maybe everybody pays in their ISP or for supporting institutions (like Universities) that support Usenet, but with less interest in Usenet will this be supportable? I'm not sure the world of the future will be so kind to those people who just want to connect.

Maybe it's time for subscription-supported discussion and Web sites. Adbusters is perhaps in the vanguard here. I'd like to see other such media with less of an anti-pop-culture theme, to discuss all sorts of subjects of interest.

There is a place for publicly supported media. Even with their political slant, I find NPR to be the best source of News and discussion on the Radio.

What really happened to cyber-cash initiatives of a few years ago? I know they pretty much died for lack of interest, but I'd sure like to be able to read interesting articles and pay some pittance for each article.

-Jordan Henderson

I'd be surprised if VA did. They'd be killing the goose that laid the golden egg.

Most newspapers, believe it or not, are not family-owned or staff-owned ventures. They're part of larger media conglomerates: Hollinger/Southam, News Co, Thompson, for example. All the US's major TV networks are owned by conglomerates. These conglomerates frequently have business interests elsewhere.

Some media sources have owners that have an active involvement in day-to-day activities. Look at Conrad Black and his pet newspaper (and money sink), the National Post. Some networks blunt coverage of their parent conglomerates, like CBS did when news about pedophiles working at Disney surfaced (see the Brill's Content Mouse-ke-fear issue). Some newspapers run scared from hometown corporations, like the Cincinatti Enquirer did after it ran, then withdrew, a major expose on Chiquita. And some just leave their newspapers alone.

I think, since I have no reason to think otherwise, that VA is going to leave Slashdot alone. They have no media experience and they really have no interest in using Slashdot as a major advertising vessel quite yet. Remember that their equity valuation is largely based on a hugely successful stock offering, not on an especially large market share.

They might be tempted, but even the slightest hint of interference would destroy Slashdot's credibility outright. Things like this have a way of coming up, no matter how deeply buried they are.

If you want to keep up with media watching, get a subscription to Brill's Content or another media magazine, like Adbusters. Be conscious of your media.

--

Targeting ads at me doesn't force me to buy some. I and I alone am responsible for my purchase habits, not some mega-database.

Do you really think that all these companies are dumb enough to spend millions on advertizing that doesn't influence buying? Forget it. The ad companies even have a target demographic for people who think they're too smart for advertizing to affect them.

We are programed by our genes and by our environment, nothing else. Every bit of information that goes into your mind programs it a little bit. You have the opportunity to choose your programming; choose carefully.

Suggested further reading: Adbusters.

Companies are not individuals and have no right as such. The author seems to have missed on a large body of law that says otherwise.

Sadly, this is untrue. Someone else pointed this out earlier but it bears repeating: in the United States, a corporation is a "natural person" under the law, entitled to all the same rights as people who happen to be made of meat.

This great Adbusters article goes into a lot of detail of the history of corporations and how we ended up in this mess. From the article:

Then came a legal event that would not be understood for decades (and remains baffling even today), an event that would change the course of American history. In Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific Railroad, a dispute over a railbed route, the US Supreme Court deemed that a private corporation was a "natural person" under the US Constitution and therefore entitled to protection under the Bill of Rights. Suddenly, corporations enjoyed all the rights and sovereignty previously enjoyed only by the people, including the right to free speech.

This 1886 decision ostensibly gave corporations the same powers as private citizens. But considering their vast financial resources, corporations thereafter actually had far more power than any private citizen. They could defend and exploit their rights and freedoms more vigorously than any individual and therefore they were more free. In a single legal stroke, the whole intent of the American Constitution -- that all citizens have one vote, and exercise an equal voice in public debates -- had been undermined. Sixty years after it was inked, Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas concluded of Santa Clara that it "could not be supported by history, logic or reason." One of the great legal blunders of the nineteenth century changed the whole idea of democratic government.

Adbusters is wonderful, you should subscribe.

"And one thing that has been possible in TV since the beginning --- and which is much more effective --- is to reorder parts of an interview, for example, or to leave stuff out."

Ever watch 60 Minutes? I swear, every damned interview they show.. Cut to interviwerer, cut to interviewee, etc.. The way they shoot it practically implies they've gone and rededited it for content. The same for most ads that involve testimonials. Gah, this is why I don't watch TV anymore. People feel that they can get away with manipulation of information to further their own ends.

Prove that they are wrong. Ignore ads. Buy only what you need, and rarely buy "wants" unless it would really help you. Become a human being, not just some advertising or "prolfeed." (plug Adbusters culture jammer headquarters, or here for a direct to their homepage without mouse-over intro version)
---

"And one thing that has been possible in TV since the beginning --- and which is much more effective --- is to reorder parts of an interview, for example, or to leave stuff out."

Ever watch 60 Minutes? I swear, every damned interview they show.. Cut to interviwerer, cut to interviewee, etc.. The way they shoot it practically implies they've gone and rededited it for content. The same for most ads that involve testimonials. Gah, this is why I don't watch TV anymore. People feel that they can get away with manipulation of information to further their own ends.

Prove that they are wrong. Ignore ads. Buy only what you need, and rarely buy "wants" unless it would really help you. Become a human being, not just some advertising or "prolfeed." (plug Adbusters culture jammer headquarters, or here for a direct to their homepage without mouse-over intro version)
---

Ad Busters have been talking about this for a long time.

But then I've always wondered why we even care about TV. This seems like a pointless battle. Internet access for the underpriviledged, and mico-radio broadcast rights are much more worthy goals in my mind.

Ad Busters have been talking about this for a long time.

But then I've always wondered why we even care about TV. This seems like a pointless battle. Internet access for the underpriviledged, and mico-radio broadcast rights are much more worthy goals in my mind.

article at adbusters about superimposed ads.

featuring comments from Denny Wilkinson of Princeton
Video Image "the world's pioneer in virtual advertising and product placement
for TV and film." This guy scares me.

10 times more expensive? I buy a magazine called "Adbusters" whenever I can find it on the store shelves... They have no ads, and it is less then $8 Canadian price... If these people can do it without ads, so can the rest of the magazines...

Adbusters is a nonprofit; I expect that the magazine is partially subsidized by their other donations and fundraising, not just by the cover price.

Adbusters is wonderful, however: I highly recommend it.

I highly recommend it. I rarely watch any television, occasionally I watch one owned by a friend, so I am exposed to TV every once in a while.

I have to agree. Watching people watch TV is kind of horrifying. It's weird so see a perfectly good brain just sitting there rotting itself. Even if a person only watches a couple of shows every week, this translates into a pretty significant percentage of a person's non-work hours being spent in an activity that benefits only the advertizers.

I cannot believe that people *volunteer* to be abused by corporations in this way. People PAY for televisions, and PAY for cable/satellite service, which they really don't need, and why? So they can watch largely useless and silly programming, the only purpose of which is to trick you into watching hours and hours of subtle, mindbending persuasion, the purpose of which, in turn, is to condition viewers/subjects/victims to buy still MORE shit they don't need and didn't even know that wanted until they saw whichever bimbo-with-a-toothy-and-seductive-grin is popular this month on that INFERNAL FUCKING BOX OF DISTRACTION!!

Oooh.. that feels better...

Check this out:
http://www.adbusters.org

That's media's weak point. Media exists to be consumed - otherwise, it fails, both in purpose and financially.

Children have no immunity. They are hard-wired to absorb everything that surrounds them, and it helps form the neural passageways that make them who they are. This is where parents can have an effect, by directing the children's senses to correct things. Even a little proding will result in positive effects, and the children will seek out more for themselves.

As they become older, they become better consumers, realizing a little how the media sources are not always benevolent. I remember as early as grade school being taught the basics of advertising, and how effective techniques (bandwagon, celebrity endorsement, etc.) are not always logically consistant. Kids should probably get a media class early in life, the earlier the better.

Soon, the tricks become transparent. They recognize simple trends (Gap trying to make products look cool, Coke associating their product with a catchy tune), and they become less effective. Media that once worked becomes less effective (remember the Hanna-Barbara shorts that were always the same? Hawkman confronts enemy, gets caught, bird saves, Hawkman is victorious. Or how about the fill-in-the-blank Scooby Doo plots?). Even when the media recognizes the consumer is getting smarter, they still have a hard time (Sprite still tries celebrity endorsement, but refers to the fact that they are doing it, and it hasn't worked on me yet).

Eventually, we become the Regulons. We walk out of the room during commercials. We play drinking games around product placement. We buy the same product for less at the off-brand store. We create content, instead of consuming it. We create products like the TiVo to eliminate comercials, or SlashDot, which bars the most annoying of ads.

They try harder and harder (creating Java game commercials, million-dollar superbowl spots, advertisements on bannanas, chalk drawings), but we get smarter and smarter. They will survive, since there is always the unaware to fall into the trap, but there are some predators out there, and some of them have a moral obligation to educate others.

Why not join us?

Why would his invention be good? It's disposeable. What does that mean? More metric tons in the landfil. North Americans already consume, and thus produce much, much more garbage than other societies (including the European ones). What is this fascination with "use once, dispose many" products?

Look at the twinky wrapper. A piece of cardboard, a shell of plastic, and none of it is recycled. You want to vote? Don't use a piece of throw-away paper with no security (reading without opening envelope? Does no one else see the problem?), use a proper system that uses the voter's fingerprint. Walk up to a public terminal, verify your identity with the fingerprint and/or retinal scan (both technologies are existant today), and then enter your vote. Strong encrypted, your vote is sent to an automated computer which will tabulate the votes quickly and cheaply. And no more garbage.

Want more info? Go to adbusters.
---

So why then didn't we see any headlines for Buy Nothing Day ?