Disagreeing with something Obama said or did is no more or less racist than disagreeing with something Trump did or said is patriotic. If someone does something stupid, it should be pointed out, not ignored or even celebrated for all the wrong reasons.
Then again, the US didn't have a president worth the name since Eisenhower moved out of the White House.
What do drugs do? Well, in a nutshell, they interact with certain parts of your body, more often than not parts of your brain, causing it to function differently.
Quite frankly, nothing of value would be lost. All we get today is remakes of movies that already exist anyway (and usually worse than the original), so what exactly is their reason to exist?
It's not really advisable to workers to go on strikes to combat management replacing their jobs with robots. Because, guess what: Nobody will give a shit.
Likewise, it's probably not the best way to save your jobs to put on a strike when the thing you're protesting is pretty much what makes you redundant in the first place.
Actually, it's the same problem as we have with video games. New ideas are a risk. People may or may not like it. But with every movie (and game) being a multi million dollar wager, you want to bet on the safe side. So what would you fund? A new movie format that may or may not sit well with your target audience or the remake of a story that already drew masses to the movies 20 years ago? A new game style nobody tried before or the same game that already sold well last year with a new year date next to its franchise title?
This can actually have way more impact than a prerecorded ad if (and only if) a few criteria are met.
First and foremost, the viewer not only has to trust the person doing the promotion, but he also has to believe the person. The ad subject has to match the person doing it. Imagine I'm doing a show about how to keep your computer and home network safe and free of spyware and other nuisance, you'd probably not really consider me too believable if I run ads for, say, dishwasher detergent. Of course I might use some, but who died and made me an expert on washing dishes? You'd probably be more inclined to believe me if I endorsed some security product. But even that depends on how much you trust me and how much you trust me to value you, as a viewer, more than ad money. And before you say "duh, why'd you want me more than money?", consider that all the average YouTuber has is his reputation and on that pretty much hinges all his subscribers, who, in turn, are the ones that mean ad revenue and (and that part is becoming more and more important as we speak) who may support him financially, either via services like Patreon or by buying merchandise.
The YouTube ad model is failing, by the way. But that's a different story.
So you first of all have to believe the presenter not only to be honest with you but the product also has to match the show so you believe that he knows what he's talking about. And to make matters even worse, the product has to be something that you COULD be interested in. If you're watching a show about computer security, you might actually be interested in knowing what antivirus software you should buy. If you're watching a show about music production, chances are that you are producing music and an ad about how to sell your music profitably may be interesting to you. So the ad has to be on topic. It has to match the show.
And finally, and that's the most important part: The ad absolutely MUST be entertaining. Or else people will still skip it, at least after seeing it once. That also means that you can't just rattle down the same text in every video you're doing. Take a good ad. An entertaining one. Let's say the Nissan ad with the pigeons. That's a funny one.
Once.
Maybe twice.
Now please go and watch that ad 5 times. Still funny? Still entertaining? Or does it get annoying? Keep watching it. How many times can you watch it before you're just fed up enough that you do not want to see it ever again?
So what the channel host has to do, and this is his incredibly big advantage over normal ads, is to give it a little twist every time he spins it. Keep it entertaining! Add a line or two about it, connect it with current events, you can do a lot here but you MUST NOT be boring. People hate boring stuff when they're watching something to get entertained. And they will mercilessly skip anything that they consider boring or "seen before".
Dear advertising customers. Yes, you out there who fall for the lie that ad companies tell you. That you can actually "engage" or otherwise get anyone interested in your ad by making it topical, or making it about something the person is actually interested in. The sad truth is that your ad can be as topical and engaging as could be about something I want and still it would be considered a nuisance. Allow me to inform you why.
Take YouTube. You know, that online TV-Replacement. Where I, as a user, can decide that "hey, I want to see a video". Now, let's imagine I want to see a video of my favorite music band. I type in the name of the band and the name of the song, expecting to watch the video to said song.
Now you could come with the most on-topic ad one could imagine: Imagine you're a music promoter and you'd want to promote a gig of that band in my home town. It does not get any more on-topic, engaging and interesting to the customer than this. And STILL I would not even see what you are promoting but rather annoyed click on the 5 second ticker that ticks down to "skip". Because at that very moment, my expectation and my "want" was to see that video. Not your ad, not anything else, I want that video. Anything that stands between me and that video is a nuisance, distraction and generally something I do NOT want.
You see the problem? When people are actively trying to get something specific, anything that blocks their access to it is seen as an interruption and nuisance that they want to get rid of. No matter what it is.
What does work a lot better is when people watch some videos of one of their YouTube favorites and you can get them to endorse your product, especially if they have the skill to weave that in an interesting way into their presentation. Because more often than not they watch the channel for the person and his or her presenting style, not exclusively for the content presented, so the person they like presenting your product in an engaging way can actually work. Provided your product is in any way sensibly connected with the show at hand.
I once played an MMO where you would eventually end up paying people to NOT show up to raids because if everyone who came entered the raid zone, the game would crash or at least grind to a halt so badly that nobody could play.
You can think of UBI as being the real world equivalent.
Like the snake-oil peddlers that sell industry strength bleach as medicine. "Not for human consumption! But if you choose to use it as such, put a drop of the one and a drop of the other...". Apparently that makes it nice and legal.
So simply say "Not for piracy! But if you really plan to use it as such, download..."
Of course not! Swapping child porn leaves child molesters out of money and cuts off the revenue stream of one of the worst kind of criminals while copying movies deprives hard working studios of well earned income!
You're not required to listen, but yes, I want them to be allowed to speak their mind.
I do reserve the right to answer to their bullshit, though. And in no uncertain terms. And with exactly the same reason: I want to be allowed to speak my mind, too.
You have a right to have an opinion and you have the right to express it. You do NOT have the right to not have your opinion challenged, though.
Expressing an idea is good! Do not get me wrong here, everyone should have the right to speak their mind, no matter how insane I may consider his idea. Yes, that means that the white supremacist should be allowed to give a speech about the superiority of his white race.
Two stipulations, though:
First, he has the right to speak but no right to an audience. Nobody is required to listen to his bullshit. Because that would definitely be harassment.
Second, I reserve the right to the same right, i.e. telling the audience why this bullshit is bullshit. And yes, I'm aware that the white supremacist may feel "harassed" by someone daring to oppose his views, but I expect to have exactly the same rights as he does. If you can't stand the heat the kitchen may not be the place for you.
A sane world is a free one. Because only in a free world you will get to hear ALL opinions, even the ones you do not want to hear. Ideas that go against your religion, your groupthink, your echo chamber and your peer group approval. They will not be filtered and they will reach you.
Reality on the other hand simply is. No matter how much you wish it away. Saying it ain't simply isn't going to serve you well, for reality is a cruel mistress who will remind you that she's in charge. No matter your wishes, no matter your doctrine or your conviction.
And yes, that works for the alt-right as much as for the alt-left (or whatever the term is for the regressive left is today, I fail to keep track and quite honestly, I couldn't care less what attribute they want to be associated with today). Sanity as well as reality is found in the middle ground. Not the extremes.
Slashdot Mirror
Disagreeing with something Obama said or did is no more or less racist than disagreeing with something Trump did or said is patriotic. If someone does something stupid, it should be pointed out, not ignored or even celebrated for all the wrong reasons.
Then again, the US didn't have a president worth the name since Eisenhower moved out of the White House.
Please be more specific, what is morally wrong, zapping people who love the US or loving the US?
What do drugs do? Well, in a nutshell, they interact with certain parts of your body, more often than not parts of your brain, causing it to function differently.
What does this do again?
Quite frankly, nothing of value would be lost. All we get today is remakes of movies that already exist anyway (and usually worse than the original), so what exactly is their reason to exist?
It's not really advisable to workers to go on strikes to combat management replacing their jobs with robots. Because, guess what: Nobody will give a shit.
Likewise, it's probably not the best way to save your jobs to put on a strike when the thing you're protesting is pretty much what makes you redundant in the first place.
Actually, it's the same problem as we have with video games. New ideas are a risk. People may or may not like it. But with every movie (and game) being a multi million dollar wager, you want to bet on the safe side. So what would you fund? A new movie format that may or may not sit well with your target audience or the remake of a story that already drew masses to the movies 20 years ago? A new game style nobody tried before or the same game that already sold well last year with a new year date next to its franchise title?
So it's not a rehash of one but of the other? Oh that makes all the difference, it's so new and genuine now!
This can actually have way more impact than a prerecorded ad if (and only if) a few criteria are met.
First and foremost, the viewer not only has to trust the person doing the promotion, but he also has to believe the person. The ad subject has to match the person doing it. Imagine I'm doing a show about how to keep your computer and home network safe and free of spyware and other nuisance, you'd probably not really consider me too believable if I run ads for, say, dishwasher detergent. Of course I might use some, but who died and made me an expert on washing dishes? You'd probably be more inclined to believe me if I endorsed some security product. But even that depends on how much you trust me and how much you trust me to value you, as a viewer, more than ad money. And before you say "duh, why'd you want me more than money?", consider that all the average YouTuber has is his reputation and on that pretty much hinges all his subscribers, who, in turn, are the ones that mean ad revenue and (and that part is becoming more and more important as we speak) who may support him financially, either via services like Patreon or by buying merchandise.
The YouTube ad model is failing, by the way. But that's a different story.
So you first of all have to believe the presenter not only to be honest with you but the product also has to match the show so you believe that he knows what he's talking about. And to make matters even worse, the product has to be something that you COULD be interested in. If you're watching a show about computer security, you might actually be interested in knowing what antivirus software you should buy. If you're watching a show about music production, chances are that you are producing music and an ad about how to sell your music profitably may be interesting to you. So the ad has to be on topic. It has to match the show.
And finally, and that's the most important part: The ad absolutely MUST be entertaining. Or else people will still skip it, at least after seeing it once. That also means that you can't just rattle down the same text in every video you're doing. Take a good ad. An entertaining one. Let's say the Nissan ad with the pigeons. That's a funny one.
Once.
Maybe twice.
Now please go and watch that ad 5 times. Still funny? Still entertaining? Or does it get annoying? Keep watching it. How many times can you watch it before you're just fed up enough that you do not want to see it ever again?
So what the channel host has to do, and this is his incredibly big advantage over normal ads, is to give it a little twist every time he spins it. Keep it entertaining! Add a line or two about it, connect it with current events, you can do a lot here but you MUST NOT be boring. People hate boring stuff when they're watching something to get entertained. And they will mercilessly skip anything that they consider boring or "seen before".
Ok, name 3 products you have seen YouTube ads for.
Hell, I'd fail at naming one. All I see is 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, skip.
Dear advertising customers. Yes, you out there who fall for the lie that ad companies tell you. That you can actually "engage" or otherwise get anyone interested in your ad by making it topical, or making it about something the person is actually interested in. The sad truth is that your ad can be as topical and engaging as could be about something I want and still it would be considered a nuisance. Allow me to inform you why.
Take YouTube. You know, that online TV-Replacement. Where I, as a user, can decide that "hey, I want to see a video". Now, let's imagine I want to see a video of my favorite music band. I type in the name of the band and the name of the song, expecting to watch the video to said song.
Now you could come with the most on-topic ad one could imagine: Imagine you're a music promoter and you'd want to promote a gig of that band in my home town. It does not get any more on-topic, engaging and interesting to the customer than this. And STILL I would not even see what you are promoting but rather annoyed click on the 5 second ticker that ticks down to "skip". Because at that very moment, my expectation and my "want" was to see that video. Not your ad, not anything else, I want that video. Anything that stands between me and that video is a nuisance, distraction and generally something I do NOT want.
You see the problem? When people are actively trying to get something specific, anything that blocks their access to it is seen as an interruption and nuisance that they want to get rid of. No matter what it is.
What does work a lot better is when people watch some videos of one of their YouTube favorites and you can get them to endorse your product, especially if they have the skill to weave that in an interesting way into their presentation. Because more often than not they watch the channel for the person and his or her presenting style, not exclusively for the content presented, so the person they like presenting your product in an engaging way can actually work. Provided your product is in any way sensibly connected with the show at hand.
I don't know, because we could learn from history, refuse to make the same mistakes over and over and make it better?
I know, who am I kidding?
I once played an MMO where you would eventually end up paying people to NOT show up to raids because if everyone who came entered the raid zone, the game would crash or at least grind to a halt so badly that nobody could play.
You can think of UBI as being the real world equivalent.
Like the snake-oil peddlers that sell industry strength bleach as medicine. "Not for human consumption! But if you choose to use it as such, put a drop of the one and a drop of the other...". Apparently that makes it nice and legal.
So simply say "Not for piracy! But if you really plan to use it as such, download ..."
Another promise the MAFIAA didn't deliver on.
Depends entirely on your country whether circumvention of anti-ripping technology is legal.
Well, they better make shipping free on those drugs, what the fuck do I pay Prime for? Certainly not the ancient shows and movies!
Of course not! Swapping child porn leaves child molesters out of money and cuts off the revenue stream of one of the worst kind of criminals while copying movies deprives hard working studios of well earned income!
Or something like that.
Well, you were lucky this time, next time one of those killer-pedestrians may jump into your car and kill you!
Catch-22: Who's in charge of backups?
You're not required to listen, but yes, I want them to be allowed to speak their mind.
I do reserve the right to answer to their bullshit, though. And in no uncertain terms. And with exactly the same reason: I want to be allowed to speak my mind, too.
You have a right to have an opinion and you have the right to express it. You do NOT have the right to not have your opinion challenged, though.
Expressing an idea is good! Do not get me wrong here, everyone should have the right to speak their mind, no matter how insane I may consider his idea. Yes, that means that the white supremacist should be allowed to give a speech about the superiority of his white race.
Two stipulations, though:
First, he has the right to speak but no right to an audience. Nobody is required to listen to his bullshit. Because that would definitely be harassment.
Second, I reserve the right to the same right, i.e. telling the audience why this bullshit is bullshit. And yes, I'm aware that the white supremacist may feel "harassed" by someone daring to oppose his views, but I expect to have exactly the same rights as he does. If you can't stand the heat the kitchen may not be the place for you.
Care to give me your definition of Nazi first so I know whether I can agree or not?
So does reality. And sanity.
A sane world is a free one. Because only in a free world you will get to hear ALL opinions, even the ones you do not want to hear. Ideas that go against your religion, your groupthink, your echo chamber and your peer group approval. They will not be filtered and they will reach you.
Reality on the other hand simply is. No matter how much you wish it away. Saying it ain't simply isn't going to serve you well, for reality is a cruel mistress who will remind you that she's in charge. No matter your wishes, no matter your doctrine or your conviction.
And yes, that works for the alt-right as much as for the alt-left (or whatever the term is for the regressive left is today, I fail to keep track and quite honestly, I couldn't care less what attribute they want to be associated with today). Sanity as well as reality is found in the middle ground. Not the extremes.
You mean, like, say, how it was 20 years ago?
Oh, Usenet. I kinda miss it, it was almost like the social media bullshit today. About as much spam, but with more openness and less restrictive.
Plus, as an added bonus, no idiots trying to "friend" you so they get ahead in some bullshit game.