I was just wondering about the banner ads I see. Do you guys have any say at all about what kind of ads are acceptable. The reason I ask is I just saw one for Joe Arpaio (something about taking back the country). I would think, if you had the capability (which you may not) that you may want to stay away from any political or contentious ads regardless of the affiliation.
Reported.
Did I do something wrong?
I suspect she reported the ad thing to the powers that be for investigation.
But sleep with one eye open, just in case…the squid is out there somewhere.
-D/a
This is better answered by Ed or Jerry, so I sent this on to them. That’s what it means. Sorry, didn’t mean for you to be worried or anything.
I am no fan of Joe Arpaio, but I see no reason why this board should ban political ads, provided they don’t make noise and are safe for work. Ditto for contentious ads, although I’m not sure what that means.
My take is the proper answer to bad speech is more speech.
I care less about what the ad is for, and more about the fact I just heard one. No audio from ads is ever acceptable.
Nowhere it is written that all ads will be silent.
Complaint has been made if the ad plays automatically without being touched. But ads that sound off when triggered or moused over, that’s apparently acceptable.
Ok, I just viewed this page on a browser where I’m not logged in. It had an ad that says, “There’s a good chance you own an oil company,” by the American Petroleum Institute. I find that offensive: true, anybody with a general equity mutual fund probably owns some oil companies, but that doesn’t imply that they benefit from governmental subsidies to oil companies. Distortionary taxes will line someone’s pockets. But the harms they do to the general community exceed the benefits to the special interest: economists call this a “Dead weight loss.” Those with a proportional interest in oil companies would be better off if management would quit their lobbying for special favors: their gain is the software industry’s loss for example, who face a higher cost of capital and tax burden.
The point: most ads are inane, and therefore are highly offensive to somebody. Like me for example. I see no reason to cull out political ads for special censor.
ETA: !Hijack! If there were an option to turn on google ads only, this charter member would check that box. Just saying. I don’t mind non-intrusive ads. /hijack
I don’t know what to tell you about the ads. It’s a difficult subject.
No one likes them but they are a necessary part of the continued existence of this site – without source(s) of revenue there’s no way the site can keep on being in business.
We also are dependent upon subscription revenue to help out as well. Grateful for those who do subscribe and continue to do so over the years, but subscriptions alone are not enough.
So not a lot of choices here. Same for ads. My understanding is that all ads are sold in bulk batches and there’s no choosing the ones you like and rejecting the ones you find offensive. This does not apply to ads that have been hijacked with malware; obviously we can complain about those when we find out who/what they are. But otherwise, no.
’
Really?? Huh. I thought we had always drawn the line at audio, given how unbelievably annoying it is. That is unfortunate.
Well, if nothing else, it does create a pretty good incentive to pay for membership. I recently opened up the boards on some computer I wasn’t logged into and was reminded of nothing so much as that TLC show “Toddlers and Tiaras”. I can’t imagine voluntarily browsing the boards like that.