this post was submitted on 10 May 2024
775 points (97.5% liked)

linuxmemes

21019 readers
298 users here now

Hint: :q!


Sister communities:


Community rules (click to expand)

1. Follow the site-wide rules

2. Be civil
  • Understand the difference between a joke and an insult.
  • Do not harrass or attack members of the community for any reason.
  • Leave remarks of "peasantry" to the PCMR community. If you dislike an OS/service/application, attack the thing you dislike, not the individuals who use it. Some people may not have a choice.
  • Bigotry will not be tolerated.
  • These rules are somewhat loosened when the subject is a public figure. Still, do not attack their person or incite harrassment.
  • 3. Post Linux-related content
  • Including Unix and BSD.
  • Non-Linux content is acceptable as long as it makes a reference to Linux. For example, the poorly made mockery of sudo in Windows.
  • No porn. Even if you watch it on a Linux machine.
  • 4. No recent reposts
  • Everybody uses Arch btw, can't quit Vim, and wants to interject for a moment. You can stop now.

  • Please report posts and comments that break these rules!

    founded 1 year ago
    MODERATORS
     
    you are viewing a single comment's thread
    view the rest of the comments
    [–] MonkderDritte@feddit.de 41 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (5 children)

    If a scientist group figured out that overexposition to ads decreases the efficiency (zoning out) you think the market would deflate?

    [–] nicknonya@lemmy.blahaj.zone 31 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

    ad agencies would start sell their ads as "non-tiring" or whether bullshit marketing term they come up with and nothing else would change.
    Moneymen will gladly burn the entire planet down into slag if they though it could get them one more penny every month

    [–] cynar@lemmy.world 20 points 5 months ago (1 children)

    It's a prisoner dilemma situation. It doesn't matter how effective the ads are on an absolute scale, but a relative one. The aim is to get more facetime than your competition. Unfortunately, any company that opts out gets flattened.

    Incidentally, this is why tobacco companies loved the ad ban (at least in the UK). It had long reached the point where they couldn't encourage many people to smoke. They were advertising to cancel out the poaching of customers by other brands.

    [–] MonkderDritte@feddit.de 4 points 5 months ago

    So the only way out would be legal pressure? Now how to get there?

    [–] spujb@lemmy.cafe 19 points 5 months ago (1 children)

    market researchers have figured this out several decades ago

    and no the market hasn’t deflated so there’s your answer

    [–] MonkderDritte@feddit.de 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

    Meaning current ad market in IT is a bubble? Possibly driven by dominant Google?

    [–] spujb@lemmy.cafe 4 points 5 months ago

    i don’t think bubbles last 40+ years, i wouldn’t hold out for a change anytime soon :(

    [–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 12 points 5 months ago (1 children)

    Just need to find a more intrusive way, and keep innovating ahead of the competition

    [–] CowsLookLikeMaps@sh.itjust.works 3 points 5 months ago (2 children)
    [–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 1 points 5 months ago

    Microsoft controls the volume on their devices, they have the chance to do some baller shit

    [–] PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocks 1 points 5 months ago

    Here is an alternative Piped link(s):

    https://www.piped.video/watch?v=XPGgTy5YJ-g

    Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

    I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.

    [–] shani66@ani.social 2 points 3 months ago

    No, not at all. Sure the rich want to be richer, but hurting the poor is a goal in and of itself in our world.