There are no Acceptable ads

[AlexAlex]

Ads are a conflict of interest. In a sponsored platform the end user is not the customer but someone one the sponsors customer pays to exploit. That works in a mass aggregate information context to create extremely effective defacto censorship. Sponsored mediums inevitably lead to captured government and a captive populace. That's right, sponsored politicians leading to sponsored courts and regulatory bodies all of it resulting it sponsored law or the very arbitrary law as money condition that democracy was meant to address. The end result is a loss of rights (loss the ability to be heard and exercise right and the atrophy) and loss of quality of life. This is done through information enclosure- the point of sponsorship. In practice the intent and result of sponsorship is censorship. Sponsorship is censorship.

We can do honest ad free search and trending. As these align the interests of buyers and sellers we could see a huge leap in product quality and value. Non conflict legitimate media platforms only take money from their legitimate end users. They are likely owned and controlled by those end users. They don't wouldn't for instance have officers on other boards or be doing outside funded pensions. They exist to avoid conflict of interests and created a society aimed at empowering end users (citizens) vice enslaving them with a culture of exploitation that starts with ads directed at children.

Note how insidious this is. Cable came along to free us from ads, as soon as people were switched over rates when way up and people were paying to watch ads. The ads are calculated to create addiction. A pays B to exploit C through interruption (which when added up has a huge opportunity cost) and theft of time and attention- and pays to do this to C's children. There is no gain to C in this process, C makes conditioned impulse buys that work against C's interests and damage C in successive economic cycles. Such entities also insist on being able to puff or lie to sell. Further they feel entitled to mine your privacy, and will create gossip or the equivalent and turn you pain into profit. EU is right to block this gossip or the financial gossip of the credit reporting agencies- this doesn't get in the way of free speech it aids it. Note also what cable does with the money its inflated top down hierarchical media ("medium is the message,") format generates from inflated fees. It argues against the freedom of speech and basic rights of customers. It wants a segregated separate but equal internet. It tries to use its capital to control people. It wants to literally be paid more for to discriminate and censor. It wants to be paid more for censorship and restricting access to increase profit. It also wants a "premium," for creating a further dis-insentive to improve its network when price performance is already 8x behind the rest of the developed world internet. In short it wants to replace the useful horizontal communication off the internet with Fox News.

So as we've seen the purpose of sponsored media is to counter democratic election and to further misinform the public about all matters of public interest and under consolidation to drown out or spin out any issue that could potentially be averse to any potential sponsor interest. Its total information enclosure.

The most insidious mechanism of sponsorship is anything modal. Followed by anything opt out- everything must be by default privacy protected opt in. That is why we need new browsers designed from the ground up to give the end user total control over the interface. Overlays are absolutely not acceptable. We will build new models that replace the nominal commercial claims of sponsored platforms, eliminate their tax credit (non pushed high quality product information at the end of a user initiated ad free search is another matter,) transfer the tax incentive to non sponsored systems and eventually outlaw and criminalize with heaving enforcement and penalty and democracy destroying sponsorship. Wonder why we can't address big issues or why there is a war on the internet? Its sponsorship and it goes all the way back to Santa Clara railroad and before. People think they can pay to control. If money is speech its coercive speech like blood money.

[AlexAlex]

We do of course have some amenities i.e., modern medicine and air conditioning, but our present system was possibly not the only way to get them. But at a time when our collective inheritance is enough automation to rid ourselves of toil we find our selves working 2x what we did in the bush prior to language and tools. Worse, all but a tiny fraction of work lacks necessity and therefore also dignity and security. Worse still, the work tends to produce destabilizing externalities like 14 trucks of waste per truck of product and is on average a net negative especially relative opportunity cost. Very few people experience voluntary work that they enjoy that enables them to make a real contribution. Most people experience babysitting that makes everyone worse off as it exhausts them to the point that they can't enjoy their lives. Most people spend most hours on most days in involuntary tasks that only expensive denial enables them to continue in, but not without guilt over deep down inside know its a waste of their life at a huge cost to society.

So how do we prevent the obfuscation of contribution from coming up again and setting up exploitation societies instead of free societies? It is after all the cloud of this issue that keeps it from being addressed. The first is to address the censorship which also seeks first to hide awareness of political economy. Political economy makes us aware that money is power and it is used to hurt and oppress people. Under sponsorship we hear that money is just speech and therefore safe and what ever it dictates cannot hurt people. Money or coercive power does not want limits. For instance they don't want limits on contract or effective loop holes that work to prevent abuse of power. They don't want anything that voucher-izes a capital classe's expression of arbitrary power through money. Rather they want enclosure situations where people are trapped in situations they don't even know how to talk about.

So we'd want to rid ourselves of sponsorship by first recognizing it's resultant censorship leads in mass aggregate to information enclosure and the vicious circle of sponsorship/censorship/secrecy/spying and fear or terror based societies. Notice that it is privacy, neutrality and transparency in a communication system like the net on a mass scale that turn government and business transparent. Are we going to have the spyglass turned on us so we live in constant unease or are we going to turn it around? This isn't balance we clearly don't want and given current challenges cannot risk top down supply side society any longer. The crack down has begun and it need an effective and efficient peaceful response. We see an effort to crack down on the internet by in particular the destruction of neutrality (preemption as in sponsorship via lock-in or enclosure) because some elite actors are uncomfortable with OWS and Assange, Snowden.

Attention is the final currency and its use or abuse is what defines people and their lives. These are the kinds of steps that can be used to make sure we are not oppressed from Kindergarten until we drop at mid life.

0. User interfaces must be under the total control of the end user, its not a stake holder issue, the modal
ad or construct is the most dangerous implement, it automatically leads sponsor style preemption.
1. Create a pure buyers market
2. Stop the sponsorship
3. Stop premium anything, we don't want price control in media markets
4. Get rid of agency and intermediation, we don't need prices bargained up
5. Get rid of attachment of media IP, no exclusives
6. Get rid of product placement, its stealth sponsorship- sponsors & ad free honest search and trending
in conjunction with word of mouth is more than enough.
7. Get rid of all opt out functions things must be opt in by default.
8 Insist on total privacy for the end user as the opt in condition.
9. Educate people, for instance the only way an ad situation would be acceptable is if it were opt in on a
global basis for an individual user where the end user were free to opt out at any time and where all
monies associated with the transaction were paid directly to the end user in a privacy protected way.
10. Get rid of the ability for businesses to sell other peoples information against their will- so what if the
credit unions are gone we can do it an a Dun and Bradstreet basis or spread the EU methods.
11. Turn to the tax credit for sponsored systems and sponsorship into a tax penalty and transfer that as
tax incentive for sponsor free systems.
12. Educate people about losing rights to sponsorship and about what the Mercantile period was really
like with enclosure.
13. Create criminal and civil penalties for sponsorship and a new agency that will vigorously enforce
these laws.
14. Amend constitutions to reflect that sponsorship is a censorship with a democracy destroying intent
and cannot be supported by the state in the passage of any law with the clear implication that it is
to be opposed for the threat that it represents to society- akin to graft and black mail
15. We want friction free coercion free media systems, this means we need to look to transition the
universe of content and services into the public domain through converting the internet in both
hardware and software into an end user owned and controlled system that preserves privacy and
anonymity ( possibility of unfettered ethical speech.) Look at MaidSafe for this. (proper
recognition of free use and the public's inalienable control of media markets- this is absolutely not a
stake holder model where the supply side is a stake holder- the public is the total stake holder.
We will pay after the fact possibly through a crypto currency micropayment like Safecoin but only if
we feel like paying and exactly what we feel like paying and only to promote future works. There
will be no culture that accepts a suggested retail price. The money will go to the actual content
producer and avoid parasitic intermediaries.

And to every business that will be shut out or will have the lock out reversed on them: you've already been paid off. Find a way to contribute or go under.

[Rocket]

Sounds like you are not looking for a discussion but instead talking to yourself to sort out your opinion.

That's fine. You can also enter the discussions already occurring in this very forum. You have this, this and this. You will be excused if for the last link you only read the first and last 5 posts before replying.