While your example is VERY extreme, I wrote an article about how marketers might actually try to cross over into the Fantasy MMO world. While their products make sense in a modern day themed game, fantasy games offer a distinct challenge.
You can read my article here. While it will inevitably be intrusive in some shape or form, at least they can make it entertaining.
The good news is that they probably will have to pay extra to prioritize their traffic (thanks to no net neutrality) so they can get their data in a timely fashion. And to pay for that they'll just raise the taxes of......oh crap.
"despite the rhetoric however, there is currently no evidence that broadband operators are going out of their way to block access to any widely used websites or similar online services. "
Right, nobody blocked VoIP at all...
"In fact, any significant discriminatory behavior on the part of broadband service providers ( BSPs ) would generally be financially counterproductive considering that BSPs make more money by carrying more traffic. On the rare occasion that a BSP may actively regulate traffic or impose differential pricing schemes on their network, it would likely be for rather sensible reasons. Network owners may want to discourage the use of certain devices on their networks to avoid system crashes, interference, or signal theft. They may want to price services differently to avoid network congestion and/or conserve bandwidth. They may want to exclusively partner with other firms to help them reach new customers and ultimately create superior services. And perhaps they may very well direct users towards some content before others because it helps them make the necessary money to recoup the huge investment required to create and build out broadband networks. "
Emphasis mine on what is by far the scariest statements I have seen to date on this topic.
Ok, so rather than whine about how our government is corrupt and quickly ruining life in America...I want to talk about solutions.
The telcos will begin the tiered internet pricing, and in the end the price hike will inevitably cost the consumer more.
What I want to know is, how can I get around their speed throttling for sites that do not pay up? I am not that savvy when it comes to coding my own scripts, but are there any tools that will help make things stay the same usage wise (if not price wise)?
Also, can someone clearly list some bullet points of how this will ultimately affect the end user? I'd like to share them with my family and explain to my Republican father how his boys have ruined our countries future.
While I'm sure nobody will ever read this, (let alone Taco), I just wanted to give a big "Thank You" to the editors for addressing this and bringing the score back to the left with all the other information. It is a HUGE help!
Try quoting if you are having an argument with someone, it helps the flow of the discussion.
People need to learn a basic amount of internet safety, much in the way they learn driving safety when they get their license.
The reason I come off as angry in my previous post was because of the personal attacks you made against myself and my company. I at no point made a threat to sue you, I only warned you that you should be careful as such accusations can have legal repurcussions. I am done arguing with you.
I would like to take this story to bash True.com. You know, that horrible horrible "dating service" that is pushed on Myspace. They must pay a fortune for their placement.
Anyway, I'm on OkCupid as it is free, and thought I'd see if True was free. IT IS NOT! They indicate in no way shape or form that it costs money until after you enter personal information at which time they will spam the living hell out of you. Your profile will get tons of winks or whatever the fuck system they use in an attempt to lure you to pay them money to respond, but these people are not real! It is nothing but a scam and you should all stay away.
Can anybody recommend a good dating site review site that points out things like this before I test them out and learn the hard way?
Anybody feel like setting up a website to identify users of this service and mock them? I mean....honestly, do they even think they will get a single user? Or is this just another example of the recording industry saying "look, we tried to give them what they wanted, but they didn't bite, instead they just pirated more. We need more heavy handed legislation!"
You make a lot of interesting points and just as many baseless accusations. Lets start at the beginning shall we?
'That's a nice fantasy to rationalize your job"
How is what I said in any way attempting to rationalize my job? Did I ever state that I advertise on any of these sites? No. I'm in advertising so this affects my industry in ways it might not affect the rest of people, but this is in no way about whether or not I need to rationalize my job. No need to get personal here alright?
"For instance, cross-site elements are used to track usage among otherwise unrelated sites. Even when cache and cookies are flushed some companies still correlate your data by IP address..........Maybe you in particular are not involved in it, but taking data from people like this to obtain information that they don't even know they are giving *is* morally equivalent to training spy cameras on them."
Interesting point. I feel that if you are going to use the internet, you need to take responsibility for educating yourself about the risks that exist there. While it can get too technical for people, I think the basic concepts are easy enough to grasp. But I do agree that most sites in general need to be more forthcoming with how they use the data, perhaps by using some standardized icons, because burying it in the privacy policy is practically useless.
"You, as an alleged advertising executive, may not admit to these practices and call those who do them 'bad apples', but fundamentally your job is to sell not to care about privacy. Would you quit your job if you found out your company was doing this? Highly doubtful considering you have not already done so, as is the veracity of your claims that people know what information they are giving up."
This was where I had my real beef with your post. I don't admit to these practices because I don't do them. I cannot cite any linkable evidence of this, so you'll just have to take my word for it. Perhaps reading through my posting history might enlighten you as to my viewpoints on these issues. God knows I have enough posts on this site. Moving on...it is not your place to tell me what my job is. My job is to inform people in a creative fashion about new products, services and branding messages for our clients. Selling things is the job of their sales people, which tend to be internal whereas the nature of ad agencies is external. It would help if you had some concept of how the industry works before you go making incorrect assumptions. As part of my job, I am responsible for the image of my clients. I know DAMN WELL that infringing privacy generates bad thoughts from customers. Thus, I DO care about privacy as my clients have a vested interest in staying on the good side of their customers.
You had no business making that last statement of yours other than to be a troll. You question my ethics and then draw your own incorrect conclusion. I am fortunate enough to work for one of the rare agencies that prides itself of being made up of ethical people who "get it" when it comes to fostering good will with customers. My company does not take part in this kind of data-mining, but more importantly, IT WOULDN'T BE AN AD AGENCY THAT WOUDL DO IT! You obviously have no concept of how media buys are made. You see, the company selling the ad space collects the data and then provides it to the media company who makes the buy. All we would see are a bunch of demographic stats and info on where would be recommended for us to place ads for our clients. But back to the intent of your question, which was whether or not I would hold my ethics over my job....you're damn right I would. And while we likely won't get a chance to test your accusation out anytime soon, I'll let you know if that ever happens. But you best watch yourself as you have not only accused me of unethical business practices, you have also accused my agency, and baseless accusations of people and companies can carry legal implications, so keep that in mind for any future idiotic posts you are thinking of making.
I don't have anything personally against the people who want the product or have more money that I do. What I DO have something against is the companies who will shift their businesses to cater solely to those people at the expense of the rest of us. And once one big company like Valve does it, the rest will follow suit. Fortunately thanks again to capitalism it should eventually even out as companies begin to cater to the rest of us to fill the market gap there. Unfortunately that means I miss out on many of the titles I love, like Half Life.
Time for my usual preface I give when I comment on advertising stories.....I'm an advertising executive, so while you may consider me biased, I also have a lot of insight into an industry that most people just make snap judgements about. And believe it or not, I'm actually a strong advocate of privacy in all forms.
Do "Web 2.0" sites give marketers more information about users? Yes.
Is this an invasion of your privacy? Absolutely not.
You are WILLINGLY entering this data into these sites and if you read their privacy policies they clearly state how it will be used. Don't want to share this info about yourself? Don't use the site. There is no invasion going on here. They are not hiding spy cameras in your room watching what you do on the computer.
Also, better targeted advertising != more advertising. Unfortunately, what happens is that many of these Web 2.0 sites rely on advertising revenue for their business model, thus why sites with large subscriber bases are worth a lot.
Lots of eyeballs = $$$$
So the owners of the sites then realize, "hmmm...I can make more money if I put more ads on the site!" and thus you have ad creep. However advertising that is more narrowly targeted is actually a good thing. Unless you have adblockers running, you WILL see ads on the internet, and rather than bitch and moan about how you want nothing to do with those sites that are being advertised, ads that are more highly targeted will have a better chance of showing something relevant to you that you might actually appreciate an ad for.
And for those of you who claim advertising is useless and it never affects you....you are liars. Period. Next time you make ANY purchase, take a moment to think back to the last time you saw an ad for that product. If you can remember seeing an ad for it, then you were subconsciously influenced by that ad (even if it was by a tiny amount) and your brand awareness increased when you saw the ad. This isn't something that is debateable, it is a logical fact.
Bottom line? If you don't want advertisers to show you more relevant ads, don't use Web 2.0 sites that collect and share this data. If you don't want more ads install an adblocker or blame the owners of the sites whose business models rely on advertising and thus fall victim to ad creep.
The problem with episodic gaming is that once companies get a taste of the cash that episodes generate, they (and their shareholders) will look for any way to generate more revenue from it. Often times, this means raising the price every year or so. This happened to MMORPGs where the prices suddenly jumped from $10/mo to $15/mo. And once one company does it and gets away with it, the rest follow suit. I understand you need to adjust for things like inflation, but inflation does not justify a 50% price hike.
What all of you suckers who buy into episodic gaming can expect in the future is increased prices, more frequent releases of episodes with less and less content, and purchasing the initial version of the game that has had features that SHOULD have been included scraped to provide "must-buy" content for the inevitable episodes. Unfortunately that last one affects EVERYBODY who might buy a game, not just the idiots who buy the episodes as we all saw with Oblivion's horse mod.
All episodic gaming is is an attempt at prepping consumers to be nickle and dimed for every game element the companies can think of. Think ringtones, wallpapers and games on cellphones, only more expensive.
Honestly, I think we should have the option of using the old version. But the biggest issue I have with this version is that it COMPLETELY breaks up the flow of how I read comments. I used to be able to skim comments by their mod points. If I wanted to read a bit faster, I wouldn't change my threshold or anything, but I would just kinda skim over the 3s and maybe 4s since I browse at +3. However now that the comment scores are on the FAR RIGHT....completely away from all the rest of the post information, my eyes are jumping all over the screen and it is screwing things up.
Please for the love of god fix that, or give us the option of going back to the old way. If it aint broke, don't fix it.
I agree it is a touchy concept to explain to kids. I mean, I personally don't give a rats ass about downloading things myself, but I know full well what I'm doing and accept the risks and responsibilities. What pisses me off is that these kids are being taught one side of the story in class and not the other, and that the side they're being taught is sponsored by an industry with a profit motive.
Odd, I didn't see anything in there about sliding down to the edge of my seat and leaning back whilst barely keeping my eyes open as I watch the screen half drunk after I get back from "lunch" at the local pub.
Also, about halfway through the article I saw the following:
"A new study suggests many workers would forego higher salaries in favor of an improved work-life balance and career advancement opportunities. Click here to read more.
And the entire sentence was a link to this site. Was that link an ad to another of their articles? How in the hell was that relevant to this article? There was some more link trickery throughout the page as well. Honestly, this story read more like something on Askmen.com than something from an actual news organization.
Does anybody have any links to good sources of counter-educational materials that discuss the evils of the recording industry, the unfair and illegal tactics they use and what the rights are of the Canadian people for Fair Dealing? People should educate children and prepare them for the classroom so they can respond in an educated fashion to unfair and morally wrong brainwashing.
"Aside: Why have you not bought music since Napster started? Isn't there anything out there that you like?"
No, there's plenty out there that I like, unfortunately much of it is electronic music that I cannot purchase except in vinyl format, which is useless since I don't have a turntable. Thus I end up downloading (pirating if you will) all of my music. Aside from that, i'm too much of a cheapass to make myself pay for it.
Can anybody point me to a service that features the recommendation power of these great sites, but also provides an easily accessible link that allows me to instantly start downloading the song in the background? I don't mind if it is free music as I'm sure there are no legit services out there that would provide this functionality with copyrighted music.
My biggest problem is that I love discovering new music but when I find something I like I always have to write it down and then go hunting for it on Soul Seek later, and I haven't purchased music since Napster, so please don't suggest any paid services.
You sound like you're trying to make us feel guilty for that. Of COURSE we're looking for a replacement site (well, not me personally as I have several others I can go to). We all loved the Pirate Bay and had some "brand loyalty" towards them if you will, but they provided a service, and no longer do, so of course people are going to look for an alternative.
But I think that's just a secondary reason for reading this thread. The Pirate Bay has really done a lot to speak out against all the idiocy that has been going on with copyright laws. Hell, they were even going for a political party, but now they have been apparently wrongly been taken down. There are many more reasons for concern over this other than where to get your next.torrent fix.
Or how about everybody who is in the importing/exporting business? Or companies that have offices overseas. Although as long as they are "Bush Approved" companies I'm sure they won't have any problems.
I searched and searched and searched on the article for some way to contact the "journalist" who wrote this piece of garbage but was unable to find any contact info. Anybody have any luck? I'd love to Slashdot his mailbox with reasons why he needs to find another profession since he is disgracing this one.
Slashdot Mirror
You can read my article here. While it will inevitably be intrusive in some shape or form, at least they can make it entertaining.
Right, nobody blocked VoIP at all...
"In fact, any significant discriminatory behavior on the part of broadband service providers ( BSPs ) would generally be financially counterproductive considering that BSPs make more money by carrying more traffic. On the rare occasion that a BSP may actively regulate traffic or impose differential pricing schemes on their network, it would likely be for rather sensible reasons. Network owners may want to discourage the use of certain devices on their networks to avoid system crashes, interference, or signal theft. They may want to price services differently to avoid network congestion and/or conserve bandwidth. They may want to exclusively partner with other firms to help them reach new customers and ultimately create superior services. And perhaps they may very well direct users towards some content before others because it helps them make the necessary money to recoup the huge investment required to create and build out broadband networks. "
Emphasis mine on what is by far the scariest statements I have seen to date on this topic.
Oblig. "You must be new here". I actually would have however I had to run to work right after I posted. Thanks for the link though.
The telcos will begin the tiered internet pricing, and in the end the price hike will inevitably cost the consumer more.
What I want to know is, how can I get around their speed throttling for sites that do not pay up? I am not that savvy when it comes to coding my own scripts, but are there any tools that will help make things stay the same usage wise (if not price wise)?
Also, can someone clearly list some bullet points of how this will ultimately affect the end user? I'd like to share them with my family and explain to my Republican father how his boys have ruined our countries future.
People need to learn a basic amount of internet safety, much in the way they learn driving safety when they get their license.
The reason I come off as angry in my previous post was because of the personal attacks you made against myself and my company. I at no point made a threat to sue you, I only warned you that you should be careful as such accusations can have legal repurcussions. I am done arguing with you.
Anyway, I'm on OkCupid as it is free, and thought I'd see if True was free. IT IS NOT! They indicate in no way shape or form that it costs money until after you enter personal information at which time they will spam the living hell out of you. Your profile will get tons of winks or whatever the fuck system they use in an attempt to lure you to pay them money to respond, but these people are not real! It is nothing but a scam and you should all stay away.
Can anybody recommend a good dating site review site that points out things like this before I test them out and learn the hard way?
'That's a nice fantasy to rationalize your job"
How is what I said in any way attempting to rationalize my job? Did I ever state that I advertise on any of these sites? No. I'm in advertising so this affects my industry in ways it might not affect the rest of people, but this is in no way about whether or not I need to rationalize my job. No need to get personal here alright?
"For instance, cross-site elements are used to track usage among otherwise unrelated sites. Even when cache and cookies are flushed some companies still correlate your data by IP address..........Maybe you in particular are not involved in it, but taking data from people like this to obtain information that they don't even know they are giving *is* morally equivalent to training spy cameras on them."
Interesting point. I feel that if you are going to use the internet, you need to take responsibility for educating yourself about the risks that exist there. While it can get too technical for people, I think the basic concepts are easy enough to grasp. But I do agree that most sites in general need to be more forthcoming with how they use the data, perhaps by using some standardized icons, because burying it in the privacy policy is practically useless.
"You, as an alleged advertising executive, may not admit to these practices and call those who do them 'bad apples', but fundamentally your job is to sell not to care about privacy. Would you quit your job if you found out your company was doing this? Highly doubtful considering you have not already done so, as is the veracity of your claims that people know what information they are giving up."
This was where I had my real beef with your post. I don't admit to these practices because I don't do them. I cannot cite any linkable evidence of this, so you'll just have to take my word for it. Perhaps reading through my posting history might enlighten you as to my viewpoints on these issues. God knows I have enough posts on this site. Moving on...it is not your place to tell me what my job is. My job is to inform people in a creative fashion about new products, services and branding messages for our clients. Selling things is the job of their sales people, which tend to be internal whereas the nature of ad agencies is external. It would help if you had some concept of how the industry works before you go making incorrect assumptions. As part of my job, I am responsible for the image of my clients. I know DAMN WELL that infringing privacy generates bad thoughts from customers. Thus, I DO care about privacy as my clients have a vested interest in staying on the good side of their customers.
You had no business making that last statement of yours other than to be a troll. You question my ethics and then draw your own incorrect conclusion. I am fortunate enough to work for one of the rare agencies that prides itself of being made up of ethical people who "get it" when it comes to fostering good will with customers. My company does not take part in this kind of data-mining, but more importantly, IT WOULDN'T BE AN AD AGENCY THAT WOUDL DO IT! You obviously have no concept of how media buys are made. You see, the company selling the ad space collects the data and then provides it to the media company who makes the buy. All we would see are a bunch of demographic stats and info on where would be recommended for us to place ads for our clients. But back to the intent of your question, which was whether or not I would hold my ethics over my job....you're damn right I would. And while we likely won't get a chance to test your accusation out anytime soon, I'll let you know if that ever happens. But you best watch yourself as you have not only accused me of unethical business practices, you have also accused my agency, and baseless accusations of people and companies can carry legal implications, so keep that in mind for any future idiotic posts you are thinking of making.
Do "Web 2.0" sites give marketers more information about users? Yes.
Is this an invasion of your privacy? Absolutely not.
You are WILLINGLY entering this data into these sites and if you read their privacy policies they clearly state how it will be used. Don't want to share this info about yourself? Don't use the site. There is no invasion going on here. They are not hiding spy cameras in your room watching what you do on the computer.
Also, better targeted advertising != more advertising. Unfortunately, what happens is that many of these Web 2.0 sites rely on advertising revenue for their business model, thus why sites with large subscriber bases are worth a lot.
Lots of eyeballs = $$$$
So the owners of the sites then realize, "hmmm...I can make more money if I put more ads on the site!" and thus you have ad creep. However advertising that is more narrowly targeted is actually a good thing. Unless you have adblockers running, you WILL see ads on the internet, and rather than bitch and moan about how you want nothing to do with those sites that are being advertised, ads that are more highly targeted will have a better chance of showing something relevant to you that you might actually appreciate an ad for.
And for those of you who claim advertising is useless and it never affects you....you are liars. Period. Next time you make ANY purchase, take a moment to think back to the last time you saw an ad for that product. If you can remember seeing an ad for it, then you were subconsciously influenced by that ad (even if it was by a tiny amount) and your brand awareness increased when you saw the ad. This isn't something that is debateable, it is a logical fact.
Bottom line? If you don't want advertisers to show you more relevant ads, don't use Web 2.0 sites that collect and share this data. If you don't want more ads install an adblocker or blame the owners of the sites whose business models rely on advertising and thus fall victim to ad creep.
What all of you suckers who buy into episodic gaming can expect in the future is increased prices, more frequent releases of episodes with less and less content, and purchasing the initial version of the game that has had features that SHOULD have been included scraped to provide "must-buy" content for the inevitable episodes. Unfortunately that last one affects EVERYBODY who might buy a game, not just the idiots who buy the episodes as we all saw with Oblivion's horse mod.
All episodic gaming is is an attempt at prepping consumers to be nickle and dimed for every game element the companies can think of. Think ringtones, wallpapers and games on cellphones, only more expensive.
Please for the love of god fix that, or give us the option of going back to the old way. If it aint broke, don't fix it.
Also, about halfway through the article I saw the following:
"A new study suggests many workers would forego higher salaries in favor of an improved work-life balance and career advancement opportunities. Click here to read more.
And the entire sentence was a link to this site. Was that link an ad to another of their articles? How in the hell was that relevant to this article? There was some more link trickery throughout the page as well. Honestly, this story read more like something on Askmen.com than something from an actual news organization.
No, there's plenty out there that I like, unfortunately much of it is electronic music that I cannot purchase except in vinyl format, which is useless since I don't have a turntable. Thus I end up downloading (pirating if you will) all of my music. Aside from that, i'm too much of a cheapass to make myself pay for it.
My biggest problem is that I love discovering new music but when I find something I like I always have to write it down and then go hunting for it on Soul Seek later, and I haven't purchased music since Napster, so please don't suggest any paid services.
But I think that's just a secondary reason for reading this thread. The Pirate Bay has really done a lot to speak out against all the idiocy that has been going on with copyright laws. Hell, they were even going for a political party, but now they have been apparently wrongly been taken down. There are many more reasons for concern over this other than where to get your next .torrent fix.