|
Considering the amount of advertisement I witness being thrown at us every single day on newspapers, magazines with 1/3 to 2/3 of their entire content, big flashing boards and screens while i'm driving, on the radio cutting my favorite song, and on tv on a constant basis even on channels i'm paying for, I cannot but watch with my mouth open at the way some people look at Google Ads. Especially considering 90% of the time I don't even remember they are there.
If the idea is for a free-ad internet, forget it. That will not be. Take your ideals elsewhere. Those times are gone, if they ever were here in fact.
But if your idea is for a responsible context based, non-intrusive ad system, then look no further than what google has been offering so far.
Personaly I find it amazing that when someone tries to do it right, the self-righteous still come forward with their fundamentalist attitudes.
As a side note Adware was not removed. It's alive and well. Many companies still rely on it. While some companies are responsible in its use, other are not. But it's out there and it is legal. As for Verisign... comparing an highly intrusive self-promoting system with GMail ads is i'm sure not what you wanted to do. Was it? Because they are clearly not the same thing.
If you consider Gmail an email hijacker, say that next time you receive an email from someone using it and you see 0 (yes, that's right. Zero) ads. Or better yet, subscribe it yourself and start using it through your POP3 based email client. You got it, you will be able to check your emails with zero ads. Hijack that.
|
You missed every point I made completely. Congratulations.
First - I've not suggested anything about an ad-free internet.
Second - I've not suggested context-based advertising is wrong.
Third - Newspapers, Magazines, whatever. Those are completely irrelevant. Sorry.
Adware I'll concede still exists.
I have stated that context-based advertising inserted into private communications is wrong.
I still believe it's wrong. I've explained quite clearly why it's wrong and potentially harmful.
The issue is not about email sent by gmail users, it's that the emails they receive have advertisements relevant to the contents of the email.
I get email every day from people using free email providers, and they have bits of text or whatever at the base, like "Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies."
Those people use free services and agree to have advertisements tagged onto their emails.
The difference is - it's *their* email that gets an advertisement added, not the email being sent by an unsuspecting, unconsenting business or website.
The test you did confirms what I've been saying. You sent yourself an email about Nikes and got 4 nike advertisements and 1 reebok ad.
Now put yourself in the shoes of someone trying to make a living. Someone's come to your shoe-selling site and made an enquiry about a pair of Nikes you sell. You take the time to write a response answering their questions, and then *they* see the 4 nike vendors (your competitors) and the 1 reebok vendor (also your competitor).
That is my argument with gmail Marfig.