Let's pit the google ads...

[Una_Persson]

@Rufus Xavier

With regard to the ads themselves being described as unobtrusive, I must bring some evidence to the table that on at least one recent occasion, a poster was led to believe that the “Sponsored Links” were, in fact, someone’s signature, and a near-riot broke out:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=336579

I don’t know CC but they showed some pretty good restraint in their answer.

[BwanaBob]

@wring

hey asshole - this whole things started w/an affirmative statement “Businesses aren’t allowed to lie”.

to which I asked “cite”, since as far as I know there is no legislation anywhere stating that it’s illegal for a corporation to lie (as a general statement - certainly they’re not allowed to file false corporate info etc). Otherwise, you’d never see such advertising as “new and improved” all the fucking time.

you’ve since resorted to merely insulting me w/o actually addressing the point I’m making. I see businesses all the time raising prices w/out having to go through public justification for their prices. Criminey, the gas stations do this damn near daily. People grouse, some noise is occaisionally made, the only times I’ve ever seen a company prosecuted for lying was when it was on an official document such as a tax return or corporate income statement. Merely raising prices saying they “Have to” isn’t necessarily a “lie” or something they’re required to defend or prove (except in regards to the marketplace if they price themselves out of business- but that’s another vehicle).
Nowhere have I ever even suggested that such an action was never morally wrong. Merely not illegal. Which is what I would imply with the statement “Companies aren’t allowed to lie”.
So, fucknugget, try addressing the point that was made instead of the words you’re force feeding into me, thanks ever so.

and the statement “no one is entitled to lie to anyone” is indefensible in MHO. If I’m under oath, I’m required to tell the truth. But to tell me that I’m never entitled to lie to anyone is absolute bullshit.
I’ve lied to save my skin from time to time for example. and felt fully entitled to do so, thank you so much.
I’ve not told the truth about a surprise present for some one from time to time for another one.
I’ve not told the truth on occasion when I thought the person wasn’t entitled to the information they were seeking and weren’t taking the answer “I don’t want to talk about it with you”.
There’s also occaisions where it does indeed seem that the person asking wants you to lie (“does this make my butt look big?” “what do you think about my new dress?”)
I would prefer not to lie. But if my safety or wellbeing is on the line, some wonderful surprise would be ruined, some innocent’s feelings would be hurt (and more than the lie) etc, all bets are off.

I think we’re arguing at cross-purposes. I’m well aware that there is no legislation making “lying” illegal. Your examples alone demonstrate that.

I meant that a company cannot lie and not expect consequences if it is found out.
Sure they can “lie” but they risk loss of business. They assess that risk and “lie” or “not lie” accordingly.

Now no one has the time to do due diligence on every factoid issued by a company (I sure don’t). But if a company does cross the line and issue a statement that makes one take pause and analyze it; then they have to take their lumps and they “cannot” fall back saying they were justified in lying.

So I guess I restore my apology because I’m fairly certain you’re not defending their right to lie “to the bitter end”.

[Aeschines]

@Absolute

You have the right to say: “Your [publication/website/tv show/whatever] runs such annoying ads, I am not going to [watch/read] it anymore.” You do not have the right to alter the content the publisher produced to remove the ads.

(Actually, you obviously have the right, but I think it’s unethical to do so. But let’s not get hung up on terminology)

Yeah, and downloading music is unethical too, right?
:rolleyes:

[wring]

@BwanaBob

I think we’re arguing at cross-purposes. I’m well aware that there is no legislation making “lying” illegal. Your examples alone demonstrate that.

I meant that a company cannot lie and not expect consequences if it is found out.
Sure they can “lie” but they risk loss of business. They assess that risk and “lie” or “not lie” accordingly.

got no argument there. sure there’s consequences to pretty much every action anyone/thing may do.

So I guess I restore my apology because I’m fairly certain you’re not defending their right to lie “to the bitter end”.

fine by me (which is why I didn’t name you in the other thread).

[World_Eater]

@Absolute

You people do realize that the alternative to the ads is shutting down the SDMB, right?

Obviously the Chicago Reader isn’t making [enough of a?] profit from the subscription fees alone, so rather than close the board they’re going to try ads. If the ads don’t improve the board’s financial situation enough, perhaps because so many jerks have decided to use Adblock, then what do you think will happen?

I’ll give you a hint: they’re not going to say “Aww, shucks, that didn’t work. Let’s leave the board up anyway.”

I’m sorry, but anyone upset about this is just another one of the SDMB’s typical compulsive offendees, who consider melodramatic bitching and complaining a recreational activity.

Lucky someone summed up my feelings verbatum without me having to type them out. Thanks!

[Yookeroo]

This thread has inspired me to add another year to my subscription. Bring on the ads!

I don’t give one fuck whether the Reader is getting rich off us or not. The only important question here is whether what you pay/what advertising you have to endure is worth it to you. As far as I’m concerned, it’s cheap at twice the price.

[JohnBckWLD]

Sponsored Links For The Anti-Ad Crowd

Anal Lube For SheepoooooooooooooooooooooShut The Fuck Up! oooooooooooooooooooooooEnron: The Smartest Guys in the Room
Keep your loud flock happyoooooooooooooooooBuy the re-released CD fromooooooooooooooooGet the documentary DVD
content & quiet with thisoooooooooooooooooothe acclaimed 1993 Mono Menoooooooooooooooby filmmaker Alex Gibney
pain-numbing ass lubeooooooooooooooooooooalbum at Rip-Offs.Com!ooooooooooooooooooooHow to bankrupt your company!

Can that be my new signature?

[What_Exit]

@JohnBckWLD

Sponsored Links For The Anti-Ad Crowd

Anal Lube For SheepoooooooooooooooooooooShut The Fuck Up! oooooooooooooooooooooooEnron: The Smartest Guys in the Room
Keep your loud flock happyoooooooooooooooooBuy the re-released CD fromooooooooooooooooGet the documentary DVD
content & quiet with thisoooooooooooooooooothe acclaimed 1993 Mono Menoooooooooooooooby filmmaker Alex Gibney
pain-numbing ass lubeooooooooooooooooooooalbum at Rip-Offs.Com!ooooooooooooooooooooHow to bankrupt your company!

Impressive amount of work
But the links don’t work.

[Giraffe]

@JohnBckWLD

Can that be my new signature?

Too long, sorry. Sigs can’t be more than four lines long, including blank lines. You’re also not allowed to have any advertising in your sig, although I’m pretty sure fake advertising is OK.

[Giraffe]

@Giraffe

Too long, sorry. Sigs can’t be more than four lines long, including blank lines. You’re also not allowed to have any advertising in your sig, although I’m pretty sure fake advertising is OK.

I should note that it’s more than four lines on my browser because the third one is wrapping around – a person using a smaller font and/or a wider browser window would only see four lines and think I’m smoking crack. Which I am, but that’s not relevant here.

[EddyTeddyFreddy]

@Giraffe

think I’m smoking crack. Which I am, but that’s not relevant here.

:dubious:

And just whose crack are you smoking?

:dubious:

[Guinastasia]

BTW, shouldn’t the ads be referenced, by now? I’m still seeing mailing lists.

[Harborwolf]

@Guinastasia

BTW, shouldn’t the ads be referenced, by now? I’m still seeing mailing lists.

Actually, I see one for an anti-spam firewall. Woohoo?

[GawnFishin]

@Guinastasia

BTW, shouldn’t the ads be referenced, by now? I’m still seeing mailing lists.

I hope this ATMB thread helps.

[wolf_meister]

Paraphrasing from Monty Python’s “Life of Brian”:

**I hate the Google Ads … a LOT !!!

**

[Ms2001]

Advertus Googlei Eunt Domus!

[JohnBckWLD]

@Guinastasia

BTW, shouldn’t the ads be referenced, by now? I’m still seeing mailing lists.

Your wish is their command. We went from spam shacks to ticket scalpers in a couple of hours time. I think I’m gonna pull up my lawn chair and wait patiently for next gray market business ads: teenaged escorts, mail-order pharmaceuticals and Indonesian cigarettes. :rolleyes:

[gum]

Yum, Indonesian cigarettes!

[Phedre_no_Delaunay]

A standing ovation to eleanorigby’s post on page seven.

I am getting so sick of the “door…ass” crap. As if it’s something shocking for members…PAYING members…to want some say in how things go. It’s no different from all those “America, love it or leave it” morons. There is nothing wrong with demanding good service. When this board was free, those comments made more sense, but now we are paying for this service and frankly, we’re getting nothing.

I feel like my money was taken under false pretenses. I was promised one thing, and given another. It’s almost bait and switch, and yes, it infuriates me to the point of deciding not to resubscribe when the time comes.

What do I get for my money now that I couldn’t get for free? I’m not a heavy poster anyway, I mainly lurk. Now I can search on Google for any content here and read it to my heart’s content. If I want to read here, there’s nothing stopping me or any other person from doing that.

[Fear_Itself]

@Phèdre nó Delaunay

I feel like my money was taken under false pretenses. I was promised one thing, and given another.

What were you promised before subscribing that you did not receive after subscribing?