Actually, your analogy is off the mark.
It would be more like JCPenny, as an integral part of their business, promoting and touting a "rate the vendor" board where a customer made libelous statements about AZ Jeans. I think AZ Jeans would be justified in a suit (naming both the libelous speaker and the facilitator, JCP).
The Seller Comments section of eBay is much more than a mere uncontrolled bulletin board--it's the stock in trade of the people who do business there. It's not billed as a chat board, but as a rating system. People shopping on eBay are led, by eBay, to expect that this comment system enhances their safety and is therefore accurate.
I'm inclined to think the court was wrong in going the "common carrier" route and, as previous posters have pointed out, they do exercise some content control already.
I did miss the part about security, but that would render the product pretty infeasible unless in highly specialized, high-budget scenarios. Would the loo guard conduct a post-piss inspection of the gear while temporarily detaining everyone exiting? If not, then the scratching and chisling will only occur and accumulate more slowly.
I have always found the common compulsion to deface restroom surfaces odd. A seemingly large segment of the population (in all countries, I'd bet) considers being alone in a public room a thrilling opportunity to exercise their power of domain by scarring it.
First of all, they had better encase those monitors in bullet-proof, unscratchable glass or they'll be vandalized instantly. How they'll protect the keyboards I can't imagine.
Secondly, I'd be disinclined to touch a keyboard in a loo under any circumstances, but even more so considering the pr0n-viewing factor. Nuf said.
I've worked in product marketing and know firsthand that such "research" can be highly misleading. Generally, these results come from focus groups where you bring people in (for pay) to evaluate an ad or campaign or whatever. When being asked to view an ad, then answer a series of questions, people invariably tend to be more favortably inclined because of the context of their experience--i.e. "I'm at a focus group to look at ads."
If they are on their own time, and attempting to access whatever content and are delayed by an unexpected ad which hinders them, the effect is almost universally negative.
And I'll only mention the psychological desire to please the questioner in passing (ever notice how they always pay for focus group participation and ply you with tasty goodies before showing you the "exciting new ads that our client wants to share with you").
If you've ever wondered why so much marketing seems so blatently stupid, a lot of it has a lot to do with the ubiquitous "focus group" system. it's a classic case of the "Emperor's New Clothes." Market research firms tend to wind up being supportive of the hypothesis as a simple matter of survival. They usually don't cheat the numbers per se, but they stack the deck ridiculously in their favor.
If I were to set up an objective test for these ads, I'd tell the participants that the objective is to "read all the slashdot articles of interest to you" (or whatever) and then interrupt them with the ads. Although even this method is flawed (most people are savvy enough to know what's being tested), I would bet that the results would be different.
Most focus groups are a scam. They exist to cover Marketers' asses and rubber stamp their ideas because they're too gutless to innovate./rant
From the article: "The bounty hunters would need to trace the offending e-mail to its source, identify the sender and provide proof to the Federal Trade Commission. The FTC would investigate and fine the offender, if appropriate. The bounty hunter would get 20 percent of the fine."
If the main problem is not having the manpower to trace and catch these spammers now (as posited earlier in the piece), how is this queuing system going to help? I would think that the in-basket would quickly fill up and it would still require huge manpower to investigate each claim.
There would certainly be loads of helf-assed cases presented and for that matter, why wouldn't spammers simply flood the queue with bogus "proofs" to bog the proceedings?
...it won't seem to odd to say, ``Car, how far to the next gas station?'' and for the car to reply ``Eight miles ahead at exit 37, there is a Chevron and a Union 76.''...the commercial aspect and assume we'll all enjoy these benefits for free.
More likely: "Eight miles ahead at exit 37, there is a Quick-Stop Cheveron with Food-O-Rama and Travellers' Information Center. To hear about... 1... other option, please say "additional options please" while pressing the "options" key on your dash."
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, your analogy is off the mark. It would be more like JCPenny, as an integral part of their business, promoting and touting a "rate the vendor" board where a customer made libelous statements about AZ Jeans. I think AZ Jeans would be justified in a suit (naming both the libelous speaker and the facilitator, JCP). The Seller Comments section of eBay is much more than a mere uncontrolled bulletin board--it's the stock in trade of the people who do business there. It's not billed as a chat board, but as a rating system. People shopping on eBay are led, by eBay, to expect that this comment system enhances their safety and is therefore accurate. I'm inclined to think the court was wrong in going the "common carrier" route and, as previous posters have pointed out, they do exercise some content control already.
I did miss the part about security, but that would render the product pretty infeasible unless in highly specialized, high-budget scenarios. Would the loo guard conduct a post-piss inspection of the gear while temporarily detaining everyone exiting? If not, then the scratching and chisling will only occur and accumulate more slowly. I have always found the common compulsion to deface restroom surfaces odd. A seemingly large segment of the population (in all countries, I'd bet) considers being alone in a public room a thrilling opportunity to exercise their power of domain by scarring it.
First of all, they had better encase those monitors in bullet-proof, unscratchable glass or they'll be vandalized instantly. How they'll protect the keyboards I can't imagine.
Secondly, I'd be disinclined to touch a keyboard in a loo under any circumstances, but even more so considering the pr0n-viewing factor. Nuf said.
Home IMAX. I can see it now. Are you listening, Steve Jobs?
"37% lift in purchase intent" my ass.
/rant
I've worked in product marketing and know firsthand that such "research" can be highly misleading. Generally, these results come from focus groups where you bring people in (for pay) to evaluate an ad or campaign or whatever. When being asked to view an ad, then answer a series of questions, people invariably tend to be more favortably inclined because of the context of their experience--i.e. "I'm at a focus group to look at ads."
If they are on their own time, and attempting to access whatever content and are delayed by an unexpected ad which hinders them, the effect is almost universally negative.
And I'll only mention the psychological desire to please the questioner in passing (ever notice how they always pay for focus group participation and ply you with tasty goodies before showing you the "exciting new ads that our client wants to share with you").
If you've ever wondered why so much marketing seems so blatently stupid, a lot of it has a lot to do with the ubiquitous "focus group" system. it's a classic case of the "Emperor's New Clothes." Market research firms tend to wind up being supportive of the hypothesis as a simple matter of survival. They usually don't cheat the numbers per se, but they stack the deck ridiculously in their favor.
If I were to set up an objective test for these ads, I'd tell the participants that the objective is to "read all the slashdot articles of interest to you" (or whatever) and then interrupt them with the ads. Although even this method is flawed (most people are savvy enough to know what's being tested), I would bet that the results would be different.
Most focus groups are a scam. They exist to cover Marketers' asses and rubber stamp their ideas because they're too gutless to innovate.
Maybe true, but aside from the awards, that pretty much describes /.
One digerati's trash is another digerati's treasure. The stroking is universal.
From the article: "The bounty hunters would need to trace the offending e-mail to its source, identify the sender and provide proof to the Federal Trade Commission. The FTC would investigate and fine the offender, if appropriate. The bounty hunter would get 20 percent of the fine." If the main problem is not having the manpower to trace and catch these spammers now (as posited earlier in the piece), how is this queuing system going to help? I would think that the in-basket would quickly fill up and it would still require huge manpower to investigate each claim. There would certainly be loads of helf-assed cases presented and for that matter, why wouldn't spammers simply flood the queue with bogus "proofs" to bog the proceedings?
...it won't seem to odd to say, ``Car, how far to the next gas station?'' and for the car to reply ``Eight miles ahead at exit 37, there is a Chevron and a Union 76.'' ...the commercial aspect and assume we'll all enjoy these benefits for free.
More likely: "Eight miles ahead at exit 37, there is a Quick-Stop Cheveron with Food-O-Rama and Travellers' Information Center. To hear about... 1... other option, please say "additional options please" while pressing the "options" key on your dash."
Julie is no Ellen.
Thirded. Outstanding SWF!