How did we go from tech companies making and selling useful products to tech companies being completely ad driven? Google, FB and most of the other companies have tens of thousands of employees whose jobs revolve around finding ways to show people ads and to keep a track of people on them so they can find their psychological weaknesses and profit from them by selling them shit they don't need.
How do we change technology back to way it was?
Money makes the world go round.
Ads make money.
Ergo ads make the world go round.
Why waste money on R&D when you can just entice companies to pay you to serve their product to your customers? It will die inevitably at least. Radio and television started off innovative then they were flooded with advertisements, the same goes for paid television. It's not enough to be making good profit margins, they get greedy and need to pinch every penny. They will be their own undoing and demise though.
Capitalism is an eternal race to the bottom that is only slowed down, and temporarily at that, by popular action or on the rare occasion the government does something to support that popular action. This is the future we chose.
this but 100% unironically
>eternal race to the bottom that is only slowed down, and temporarily at that, by popular action or on the rare occasion the government does something to support
You have it entirely backwards. The government is the one that slows it down, nigh exclusively so.
Also: with what perspective to what? Capitalism is a race to the bottom according to your drivel, what is the race upwards, or "less bottom"?
interesting book.
Why do ancaps believe that power wouldn't consolidate in the hands of a few who can force their will upon others the same way the government can do now?
>How did we go from tech companies making and selling useful products to tech companies being completely ad driven? Google, FB and most of the other companies
what "most other companies"? there are thousands of companies, making cool new stuff every day. you make it sound like a whole industry sells only a single product.
and yet people still watch hours of TV a day despite it being just ad-filled drivel. We get this dystopian future because a majority of the populace either wants or doesn't mind it. It's the 21st-century version of bread and circuses.
It's just two different business models.
Hardware and software are like films or books; something you pay out of pocket for in a one time purchase.
An internet service is like a TV show or magazine: a convenience good with mass appeal that is funded by advertisements.
advertisements are the drive of capitalism. How is a product going to sell if no one knows about it? Blogs and shit like that wouldn't be able to exist without getting money from advertisers.
Advertisements are perfect for websites that couldn't exist on a subscription model alone
blogs and shit can be run as a hobby project for pocket change, they were around before ads infected the web and they're only cheaper to run now. Frankly most of the ad-supported web ought to die.
I'd be more sympathetic to the argument of ads actually being a useful service if marketing companies hadn't realized decades ago that appeals to emotion sell more product than facts or logic.
We're in the era of techno feudalism
You're oversimplifying things, user. It's not a matter of one side only driving forwards and the other one doing nothing but it tugging the other one backwards (not the least of which because a capitalist State will almost always favor the capitalist class). Even something as awful as FB has made scientific progress in artificial intelligence, pattern recognition etc. The problem is the possible cost, most importantly the human cost. In FB's case, those nice advances will inevitably be used to decrease privacy and support surveillance police States. Just like the human cost of our nice gadgets or wide availability of foodstuffs is third world quasi-slavery. Conversely, the popular action of these people in order to improve their lot would incur a cost for us in the form of higher prices and less comfot. A small price to pay compared to the ones they're footing now, but regardless, my point is this: nothing is free, user, and if you're serious about the pseud you posted, you should know that. But the problem in this regard is that your kind seem constitutionally incapable of seeing "cost" as involving anything other than just money.
As to what I would do, of course I have my "suggestions", as do many other people, but I'm not falling into the trap of arguing about socialism and switching the subject. Not the least of which because capitalism itself, though inherently exploitative, still could be a lot less exploitative than it is right now.
Besides the human costs in the third world I mentioned above, a big part of the race to the bottom I mentioned is increasing the rate of exploitation, and that includes the first world. A popular current example: how a lower-middle class man in the 50s could buy a house, support a housewife and 2 children and put them through college, all on minimum wage or little more. Compare that to the current situation of minimum wage-earners, and realize those fancy new products we enjoy now have hidden costs.
Because ancaps are fucking retarded and don't believe in a government at all. That's the extreme side of the "right" wing. It's not even small government, it's none. You need a few basics.
Anyone with a sense of pragmatism will understand that a court/justice system is necessary for enforcing what you consider "force their will upon others" by private companies. Monopolies should have every right to exist if they are in said position because of selling/producing the best product by such a large margin that no incentive exists to compete aside from the natural one brought by the monopolies lack of incentive to lower prices.
>how a lower-middle class man in the 50s could buy a house, support a housewife and 2 children and put them through college, all on minimum wage or little more. Compare that to the current situation of minimum wage-earners, and realize those fancy new products we enjoy now have hidden costs.
This is entirely explained by the unbelievable and repeated fuckups by the government and cronyism. Dust off your history textbook. It is everything but capitalism that made the above so.
You don't even understand how minimum wage is inherently part of the cancer to bring the modern day you describe. Minimum wage is terrible idea and should have never been put forth.
>Besides the human costs in the third world I mentioned above
Hmmmmm
>A popular current example: how a lower-middle class man in the 50s could buy a house, support a housewife and 2 children and put them through college, all on minimum wage or little more.
The US population is more than double what it was in the 1950s. If you dont understand how that effects property cost then you are a legit brainlet.
more users => more money
paid product => less users
displaying ads => no (or less) paid products
>though inherently exploitative, still could be a lot less exploitative than it is right now.
Yes, by allowing a more free economic market (aka capitalism). The irony by those who spout your view is really something.
Learn your economics before giving a spiel on your anointed and naive views.
Capitalism is just a different form of slavery.
>round
I guess I neglected to mention a very important basic fact. Please pay attention, because this is something that every person on Earth needs to understand: you can't dissociate capitalism, the State and the society in any permutation of the three. There isn't such a thing as a neutral State, there never was capitalism without a State, and history point towards capitalism being impossible without a capitalist State enforcing it. I take it these notions, tho often ignored, seem clear enough when spoken, right?
In more simple terms: the government itself is run by capitalists. Inevitably, most of what it does will be to benefit capitalists. I understand cronyism as competitors wrest for governmental money and favors, but as a class, they set the rules for themselves, and their common interests include lower taxes, lower inimum wages, less regulations etc. And besides, cronyism exists in every country and age, so it doesn't explain anything by itself. It's a buzzword often thrown around to imply "it's not REAL capitalism".
Nonetheless, as for government interference screwing things up, corporate taxes decreased since the 50s (epi.org
people want free shit and only way tech companies get paid is through ads or crypto miner.
You can obv tell why 2nd option is not going to fly so you have ads.
Now you can fuck off and stop blaming shit on muh late stage capitalism because its the consumer who is fucking everything up
remember this?
Seriously, I don't understand this either. When I hear that some Americans watch the Super Bowl just for the ads it makes me cringe. There must be some kind of psychological programming going on for people to actively enjoy ads.
So Opera was always shit?
Opera was the best back then. I wish modern browsers still had features
>that crafty jew in the background smiles at the same time as the android
Opera was so good, people were ok with that banner because of all the features they got.
I literally felt good about those banners because opera was goat back then.
I believe there was also banner-free paid version.
>The poor in poor/shithole nations with rampant low-level corruption are poorer then the poor of non-shithole nations.
No shit Sherlock.
>graph
"Capitalism is decreasing poverty" is a popular fallacy nowadays. Quite literally every society ever, outside of foreign invasion, societal collapse (which often coincided with the previous) or in some cases, environmental collapse, has seen a trend of improving material conditions over long enough timelines. To say the same of capitalism is meaningless. If you measure more ample material living standards instead of just income, then man, do I have news for you about which regimes hold the records for that.
And that brings us to the second factor: living standards as a whole. Is the increasing income keeping up with living costs? Even if it's PPP, it most likely doesn't cover services, or even utilities and rent. And what about costs that aren't measured in money (as I said before), like quality of urbanization, crime rate, public health etc. etc.? All those things are conveniently ignored by looking at simple income increases. You know what mark twain said about statistics.
>The US population is more than double what it was in the 1950s.
A bigger economic scale does not necessarily imply... honestly, I'm not even sure what you're implying. Less total wealth? Fewer goods? Seriously, this statement literally makes no sense.
Well that's a nice implication of the old "it's not REAL capitalism". Anyway, is there a historical example of free economic capitalism? All examples I hear turn out to be wrong (Singapore, Hong Kong, Netherlands and others). I mean, it's perfectly understandable if it never existed and it's a proposal you want to advance, but the thing you have to consider is, capitalists themselves aren't doing anything in that regard. They pay think tanks to paise free markets, then use their State (remember, no such thing as a neutral State) to act in their favor. Put simply, capitalists themselves NEVER EVER wanted what you call capitalism (free economic).
>graphing "economic freedom"
user pls, you're falling for propaganda
Why do you not appreciate guessing? Will all your bitcoining save you?
Everything you just said can be and always will be attributed to one thing and one thing only.
Jews.
>inb4
I used to flame firefox users on the Heise forum. Good times
>Jews are not capitalism personified
Jews are everything that fuck the Goyim over.
Market is not enough free guys! What can we do? Why not legalize slavery? This will show those commies!
For me technology means innovation and innovation is dead when IBM died
I am Asian but why people hate jews or so many meme on them on Jow Forums why ???
People are just giving them what they want.
>Ads make money.
I have a hard time believing this 100%. Sure, to some extent, but I doubt ads are as effective as companies believe.
Recently, some companies have cut their advertising budgets because they don't believe that ads have a significant contribution to their sales. Can't find that article now but there is a concern that they are wasting money on ads.
And from my own experience, ads have basically zero influence on what I buy or what I'm interested in. I never make any decision based on ads exposure. And since I also block most of them on most devices, there's a very slim chance for ads to ever reach me.
Ofc, I'm not the most representative consumer, but I'm one of the people for whom the ads system does not work.
the hatred of jews is many hundred years old.
jews used to be some of the only people who could read and were banned from many kinds of work, but not from financial. they'd give out loans and fuck you over afterwards because you couldnt read anyway, and the simplest option to get rid of your debts was to kill the jew.
>Sure, to some extent, but I doubt ads are as effective as companies believe.
I've been convinced of this for a while now.
For example I have a friend that owns a few restaurants and food trucks. About 3 months ago he started paying a considerable amount of money(about 2% of his monthly profits) for ads positioning on facebook/google/tripadvisor. The result was... pretty much nothing changed. After the 3 months he dropped it and he had no noticeable drop in customers.
It's fucking bullshit.
Fuck, I meant after 2 months.
Because jews are involved in two major global fuckups:
- the international order - the existence of Israel is causing the biggest and most impactful divide between geopolitical blocs, pitting arabs against USA, USA against Iran, most arabs against Israel - it's the main bone of contention in international politics
- the financial markets - where most positions of power are held by jews
They're also involved in other fields like movie production (Hollywood), media and so on. These media typically promote certain agendas and themes, manipulating public opinion in favour of their political or business interests.
Its about brand and exposure. My first job was handling ads for a small hotel and I nearly doubled their clientelle in a few months
>And from my own experience, ads have basically zero influence on what I buy or what I'm interested in. I never make any decision based on ads exposure. And since I also block most of them on most devices, there's a very slim chance for ads to ever reach me.
True. There has literally not been a single time in my life where I made a purchase decision based off of an ad that I saw or was directly linked to. Part of me says that that's because I'm "immunized" against such tactics because I know their end goal and their methods, but a lot of people don't, which means that for that portion of the populace, these methods remain effective still and profitable enough to continue doing.
Correlation != causation
You also haven't adjusted for the buying power of money, which is typically alot lower in richer countries.
Sure, I agree, but he's been doing a much better job himself promoting his brand(he has a personal youtube channel and he himself is part of the brand) so the facebook positioning seems pointless. Especially in food services where it's all about word of mouth.
Implying ads don't work on your subconscious
The only problem with this is that for every jew that supports this, you can find one that equally hates it.
You're right there user, but as you've demonstrated different ads work for different cases. When it comes to shilling a product, I imagine it can be reasonably effective to just have it show briefly to a million retards
They don't. It's particularly useful when you're living on a budget because then you know "this is exactly what I need and only what I need".
Are you fucking retarded?
It's the first wave of technological empires, they all started as "free" services and had to monetize everything to be profitable.
Hopefully for the second wave people will stop having this notion that it doesn't cost much to run these websites. People feel that whatsapp should be free because they don't know how much it cost, but if it was like before, with a small amount of money a year and with no ads and no tracking, things would be much better.
you are the product retard
it's a lot more complex than that, remember that Whatsapp was a paid app and nobody avoided it because of that; also because it was developed at the right time
>A bigger economic scale does not necessarily imply... honestly, I'm not even sure what you're implying. Less total wealth? Fewer goods? Seriously, this statement literally makes no sense.
Land is a finite resource, you cant just build more of it. The population doubling means that the demand for land has also doubled, while the amount of land available for purchase has remained the same. This shouldnt be a hard concept to grasp.
u too
>When it comes to shilling a product, I imagine it can be reasonably effective to just have it show briefly to a million retards
That's the thing my dude, how many millions of retards do you have to show the ad to so just one of them actually buys something?
Like the other user said, I have NEVER bought anything because I saw it in an add. Now, I cannot discount the possibility that I subliminally was made more comfortable with certain brands simply because of how many times I've seen them, and that caused me to buy them at some point, but I don't know if that's a big enough effect to warrant the hunderds of millions of dollars/euro companies push into ads every month.
This, but unironically.
>I have NEVER bought anything because I saw it in an ad
highly doubtful
Okay, that's probably not correct, since it's a sure bet that I did buy something I saw in an ad when I was a kid. But that's kinda of a different thing, children are easily manipulated and swayed by colorful exciting ads, so that's understandable.
Truth be told I think it should be illegal to target children with ads.
>I don't know if that's a big enough effect to warrant the hunderds of millions of dollars/euro companies push into ads every month
You and your friend don't represent a random sample of the population. Do you really think advertisers are spending hundreds of millions of a dollars on a hunch that what they do works?
>65518904
just because you make informed purchases on significant products doesn't mean you're not manipulated by the industry. anyone who works for their money does this. in a modern first world economy there isn't a person who behaves outside this influence.
>Do you really think advertisers are spending hundreds of millions of a dollars on a hunch that what they do works?
Considering the stupid decisions I've seen corporations make and the stupid "reasoning" behind them, yes, actually, I can totally believe that that's what's going on.
>informed purchases on significant products
*informed decisions on significant purchases
No, I don't really think that. But it certainly feels like it.
I really hate it that there are people all over the world putting their best effort towards figuring out how to remotely mind-control as many people as possible. The world is a scary place.
it's not scary. they're offering you products. you're not an imbecile obviously so make smart choices. otherwise go build a mud hut and filter water out of the creek.
It is scary, because:
a) the same techniques can be used to target children
b) the same or even better techniques can be used to create political propaganda
c) it's a never-ending arms race, until ads are so effective(or will turn into something new) we will be essentially controlled by them, like ants are by the scents given out by the queen.
>Do you really think advertisers are spending hundreds of millions of a dollars on a hunch that what they do works?
Its a self feeding cycle. Advertisers pay researchers to prove that advertising works, then they use that research to convince clients that it works, then they take money from clients and use some of it to fund research proving that ads work.
I'm not saying that advertising doesnt work to some degree, but the amount of it and the money funneled into it is far beyond the diminishing returns point.
I'm all for ads telling me where I can find the cheapest [item name here]. I'll only ever buy what I need and if I can't buy exactly what I need I make it.
well children need shit too. clothes, food, shoes, toys. are you going to deny your children these?
if people have the means to be mindless consumers for whatever reason, so be it. maybe they like ordering pizza and watching movies. personally i'd rather go hiking in the SA jungle with my vacation.
stop being ungrateful. people want to sell you stuff. not all your desires are sinister or planted. not everyone goes to mcdonalds every day. if you do that's your problem not advertising.
> it's a never-ending arms race
it's called an economy
no one is going to control you through ads. your hunger, thirst, human needs are what control you.
> like ants are by the scents given out by the queen
just fucking stop with the shitty analogies
>well children need shit too. clothes, food, shoes, toys. are you going to deny your children these?
What the fuck are you on about? First of all, parents buy these things for children, not children for themselves. Secondly, it's fine to target parents with ads for things children might need or want. That's a different thing.
>if people have the means to be mindless consumers for whatever reason, so be it.
What a shitty fucking attitude. "things are as they are so whatever". No, ads are trash, they are always trash, they might be effective to some extent but they are also ugly as fuck. Billboards everywhere shitting up a good looking city. Ads on sites that would be nice and clean but instead have 5 fucking banners all over the place. Interrupting a movie or a tv show with trashy nonsense. NONE OF IT IS OKAY. It's TRASH.
>shitty analogies
I used just one, why are you using plural?
the fuck are you 14? there is massive world out there of research and development in medical, automotive, aerospace, agricultural, energy etc technologies
just because your burger flipping ass only interacts with social media and doesn't contribute to anything to society doesn't mean all of technology revolves around ads, this reads like a high schoolers deep facebook rant
I wonder who could be behind this post??
then bugman or take a fucking time machine back to soviet russia and hope you have a reversal switch. you're a fucking short sited child.
Imagine being this retarded
>i travel through my life with uninfluenced unbiased decisions and fulfill my individual role in a global consumer economy completely objectively. the things i need need as a human being to live I obtain completely absent of any outside influence.
admit it, you just think you're a snowflake
>short sited
lel
I never said I want to turn back time... although, it is tempting now that you mention it. But seriously, you cannot put back the genie of technology into the bottle. But we can try to responsibly use them. I don't think, as I said before, that ads targeting children are morally right, and therefore I think they should be opposed, whether personally or through legislation.
Same argument could be made for billboards. They make every place look worse. A beautiful town with old buildings and heritage can be turned into a horrid sight by ads.
Are you implying all human beings aren't unique?
i really wish i could punch you in the face
>imagine being his child
do you know anything about the ussr, and how shit their "ad-free" grocery stores were? even their leadership awwed upon entry of an american grocery.
the ol' economic slavery
>Money makes the world go round.
>Ads make money.
>Ergo ads make the world go round.
So wrong, the purpose doesn't justify the method
The empty shelves and famines in the USSR weren't due to lack of ads, they were due to state control of the means of production
>do you know anything about the ussr
I actually come from post-communist eastern europe, and hate communism with a passion. You can have a capitalist market economy without shitting up every available space with ads.
god you're fucking stupid
>they were due to state control of the means of production
Nope, they were due to kulak sabotage. Read a history book, you brainlet.
Wow, amazing argument there. I'm in awe of your intelligence and conversational prowess.
>kulak sabotage
>apparently ussr is the same thing as ukraine
>apparently the problem of calculation doesn't exist
Behold, the broken mind of a communist.
>being this fucking unable to correlate
>ussr is the same thing as ukraine
If you mean the previous famine, that was due to drought, which was not due to state control of the means of production either.
>the problem of calculation
en.wikipedia.org
Wow, you liked me a wikipedia article. Fascinating. Like that's gonna mean anything after a literal collapse of every single country that tried state control of means of production.
I would laugh but it's just sad that people like you exist.
>the problem of calculation doesn't exist
It doesn't anymore. We have computers nowadays. Computers that von Mises did not have, which is why he deemed economic calculation impossible.
>collapse of every single country that tried state control of means of production
Are we even talking about the same Planet Earth? Because in mine, several countries that tried state planned economy succeeded, whereas a lot more that tried laissez-faire capitalism failed.
>I would laugh but it's just sad that people like you exist.
What's your profession? You're so obviously not an economist...
>after a literal collapse of every single country that tried state control
When did that happen? I wasn't aware...
relax and have an ad free coke