Ad moderation won’t happen until there’s a unified group which can moderate ads and can’t gain from being more permissive. Basically, advertisers need to unionize against their own common interest to increase the quantity of ads.
This has kind of happened already in the form of sponsorships, where each ad is vetted and can be rejected on a case-by-case basis. Each presenter is acting alone in this case however, letting bad sponsors slip through. Bad sponsors are often slammed on in feedback though.
Perhapse if advertisers could remove their heads from their posteriors for a moment they might see that neutrally read ads with no music would drive far fewer people to block them, but this could only work if all ads on a platform were limited in this way, and such regulations could be reliable and specific enough to make blocking more hassle than it’s worth.
I’m having difficulty imagining a blocker driven agreement though, as any level of leeway for ads would all but require compensation, and that’s 99% of the way to corruption already.
However, this all could only work if for-profic companies could be convinced to not seek every possible profit at every point immediately, which is unlikely.
Google just has to grow a set of fucking balls and say “No, this ad is to loud/obstructive/annoying/disruptive/downloads malicious code, It will not be run on our service”
but Google’d rather take money from PragerU than moderate its ads to remove the need for adblocking
Google runs AdSense, they’re exactly one of the advertising companies I’m talking about. I agree that they’re in a great position to enforce regulations on ads and build trust, but why do that when you can just eliminate all the alternatives?
Ad moderation won’t happen until there’s a unified group which can moderate ads and can’t gain from being more permissive. Basically, advertisers need to unionize against their own common interest to increase the quantity of ads.
This has kind of happened already in the form of sponsorships, where each ad is vetted and can be rejected on a case-by-case basis. Each presenter is acting alone in this case however, letting bad sponsors slip through. Bad sponsors are often slammed on in feedback though.
Perhapse if advertisers could remove their heads from their posteriors for a moment they might see that neutrally read ads with no music would drive far fewer people to block them, but this could only work if all ads on a platform were limited in this way, and such regulations could be reliable and specific enough to make blocking more hassle than it’s worth.
I’m having difficulty imagining a blocker driven agreement though, as any level of leeway for ads would all but require compensation, and that’s 99% of the way to corruption already.
However, this all could only work if for-profic companies could be convinced to not seek every possible profit at every point immediately, which is unlikely.
advertisers dont even have to do anything.
Google just has to grow a set of fucking balls and say “No, this ad is to loud/obstructive/annoying/disruptive/downloads malicious code, It will not be run on our service”
but Google’d rather take money from PragerU than moderate its ads to remove the need for adblocking
Google runs AdSense, they’re exactly one of the advertising companies I’m talking about. I agree that they’re in a great position to enforce regulations on ads and build trust, but why do that when you can just eliminate all the alternatives?