No, its just that when you cry wolf so many times, no one believes you when the wolf actually turns up.
864 karma · joined September 9, 2008
I do not think twitter advertises much either. So, build it and they will come works sometimes when the product is great, but sure with advertising it works even more.
Anyway, what has everyone else always wondered?
So, there is a real opportunity for someone to come up with a much better algorithm than Google's in regard to targeting ads. But then, if you do not have much inventory, you can not really target, and a website owner would rather have an untargeted ad than nothing.
So I think the problem of targeted advertising is quite complex. For example, link adsense are targeted well, images not so well because perhaps they are more expensive to make and thus there isn't much of an inventory. Why would an advertiser, but the very few, design an image ad when a one hour to set up link ad might work just as well or better.
In any event, people like an image advert when they see it the first time, they might the second, maybe third, but soon they bored of it and start hating it. So changing the ads often is important too.
I suppose, to conclude, the issue is much more complex than simply saying that the problem is targeting the ads due to the many variables - which the ad network or publisher can or can not control - that go into targeting the ads well. That might perhaps be why there is not much progress in this area. The internet has basically just copied the model from the traditional world and tried to automate it.
It is an undervalued area though. Not many other things could make one a billionaire on par with google than solving the advertising problem.
Around what percentage if you do not mind saying, and also the general subject area of the site, i,e IT?
Just curious.
Sure the article has short falling, but you can not just dismiss it like that. It contained a lot of psychological studies, it was not just an opinion piece like your comment, and actually was cool headed.
I do not think the article was about devious people in any way. It was about power and the fact that power corrupts. That you might say is something we know, but the article offers details in how it corrupts. You might say those details we know also, but hey, that's mainstream scientific journalism.
God knows what would happened if they had managed to occupy Russia!
Besides, war is all about fame and glory.
Are you suggesting that the article is wrong in stating that the Japanese believed that the Americans would treat them better if they surrendered to them rather than the Russians? If so, perhaps you can provide some authority.
I think the TV is just a symbol to communicate a bigger picture. It is not about the TV per se, but the fact that you can afford the TV. So if you can afford such telly, then you can afford a great house too, so that your kids won't have to share a room, you would not have to worry about making trips to the pedriatician or pre-school education, basically, finances would not be a problem.
Having one problem less is not such a bad thing. Sure life is more than money, but not having to worry about money gives you more time to develop friendships, send your kids to a good school, etce...
My page eCPM is well above $1, even £1 and per channel it is well above 16 cent and even 16 pence. So I guess it depends on the site.
I do not know much about servers, but as I understand it Google runs a server and they doing so I do not think affects the traffic of my website. If however Google running a server would mean that my website would run more slowly, except for perhaps the distinction that it adds real capacity, I do not see how that is more different than paying the ISP to prioritize your traffic. Though I might need some enlightening.
If it is just a blog, then they might prefer the privacy.
It is not the prosecution who would enforce it. It is civil law. I would take the ISP to court if they discriminate against me, not the prosecution.
Art. 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms is one line also. It states:
"Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. this right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers."
That is very much enforceable. You can take the government to court if they do not uphold this "romantic, childlike, wishcraft-dominated thinking"
Of course, the law being the law, there will be exceptions. These exceptions however in our common law system are created on a case by case basis when the facts are so as to merit an exception. Not to mention that freedom of speech is a much bigger area than the simple matter of internet traffic. Yet, we all know where we stand in regards to what we can say.
"I would prefer an ISP which privileged web browsing and VOIP over BitTorrent and bulk email/video/software downloads." - That is a debate to be had. I would not want web browsing to be preferred over e-mail, which can be web browsing, video, or software or even BitTorrent though I do not use it.
You can not however argue, just because you preferred it, by rhetorically asking "Why make providing a service some people will prefer a federal crime?" I am sure some people would prefer contracting a serial killer, stealing rather than working, or more close to home, smoking weed to be legal.
"We've made it almost 20 years without FCC rules to protect the internet."
My point earlier was that the internet was in its infancy. There were spots to be filled, small ventures to rise to big corporations, little guys to be made giants, the whole thing was very new and chaotic, everyone fighting to get a piece of the pie. Now the ISPs are sort of established, have their market shares, and perhaps just want to secure themselves. So too with big corporations. Sure they can be thrown out easier than in the real world, but the internet reflects the real world much more today than in the past 20 years.
In my personal opinion, the FCC would not be involved in the matter. The law would give rights to citizens. The internet is not like the telly where a few people control what we see, the internet is like the streets and just as I can sue my local council if I had an accident due to their negligence, so too I should be able to sue the ISP if they discriminate against my traffic.
"It is not true that "we must assume... vast powers of control" are about to spring some trap. We can wait until actual harms are demonstrated -- if ever. We can wait even further, until such harms persist after enough time "
First, they came for the communists...
Healthy scepticism is good. I think that currently we all know the telecos want to prioritise traffic to make a lot of profit for themselves, we also know that this would create a tiered system of haves and have nots. We know that a level playing field is better. We know that traffic prioritisation would only benefit the telecos and big companies and screw the little guys. I would rather such things did not happen in the first place and the competition focused on improving the infrastructure and innovation, rather than bang their heads against iron doors.
We find this principle to be self evident, that all internet traffic is to be treated as equal.
That is it. No complex case law, no little print, no arcane law language.
"Any rulemaking by the feds will involve backroom deals between companies large enough to send lawyers to DC "
Are you saying that you are scared of big companies, therefore what we should do is surrender and let, possibly one of the most defining aspect of the internet, be done with by the big guys, who have suitcases and suits?
You might say you are being pragmatic and that is the reality, but only if the "bunch of people" keep silent and let the big guys get on without noise, you know, a bit like the "bunch of people" did with the War in Iraq. The corporations might have the money, but the "bunch of people" still have the political system and the power to set the debate. No politician would like to loose his job, and if some do then they will think twice in face of vocal public pressure.
As for your other points they are a matter of speculation. I would need to employ my imagination. I am sure there are many smart people on here who might be able to get around the internet prioritization with some code, who have all sort of programming abilities to overcome any technology obstacle. Maybe even if such tiered system would come to pass, some clever guy would come with some code which would make the ISP think that a certain site should be prioritized. The vast majority of people however might perhaps have to live with the reality of the way things are. In China for example, some people might use route-around technologies, but, the vast majority live with a censored internet.
As for AOL and all the rest, the internet, at least in popularity, is hardly even 20 years old, if we take the year that it took off to be 1995 when people started hearing about it in vast numbers. So AOL is really a baby learning how to crawl in the grand scheme of things. Only very recently, if not only now, has the internet become a serious medium with vast power of empowerment and, we must assume, vast powers of control.
So you can hardly compare the past to the future. You hardly can say well even if we live in a dictatorship someone will still write a pamphlet although he might be imprisoned for it.
You can argue about the substance of the matter. Dismissing the entire debate as something childish however and entirely misguided without providing any reasons but rhetoric is hardly reasonable.
I might be wrong, I might be very wrong, but personally I think we should fight and if in the end we lose, then we do so with dignity, not in 40 years or so tell our children of that thing called the internet and then feel sad of how all the baddies turned it into a one way communication platform.
I get -4 for asking what something is
and he gets +5 for saying what it is
never mind that if I did not ask a lot of people would have been completely lost
Or is that
dujmiu
As for transparency, the meetings between google and verizon were held in secret.