phucheneh
Diamond Member
- Jun 30, 2012
- 7,306
- 5
- 0
The effectiveness of ads is a different argument altogether. Ads are mostly pay-per-impression. As in, the more ads get served, the more money sites make. Click-throughs, purchases, etc don't directly affect the site serving the ads.
Realistically, it's just going to force content providers to change how they serve ads, making them more intrusive, or change their revenue streams altogether - likely in ways that won't benefit the end-user.
I wasn't even thinking about actually clicking ads, TBQH. Especially since someone was talking about Youtube ads, which are more or less 'commercials.'
My point is more that the websites dependent on ad revenue are essentially dependent upon the wastefulness of those advertising.
Take some random-ass product...for some reason, I'm gonna say 'laundry detergent.'
If Tide and Gain and whatever didn't waste money on useless advertisements, they could decrease the cost of their product. I spend less keeping myself not-filthy, and I can give Demonoid or whatever the $1 a year I'm 'stealing' from them.
It all just goes back to the circular stupidity of our entire economic system. Why don't we all just grab some hammers and start making holes in the roads...then the government can offer us gainful employment in the road-fixing industry. Hooray, we get paid money...money that we previously gave the government. And of that money they give us, we have to give some of it back. For fixing the roads.
A lot of things get made in China...but the US does know how to manufacture one thing: worthless jobs. It's kind of mind-boggling to look at the flow of money between the consumer and those providing goods and services (and the government)...it gets confusing enough to make you think 'hey, maybe we NEED all the people involved in the worthless shuffling of money to keep unemployment down'...but it's simply always going to be 'waste.'