[KLUG Members] And the Spam Wars continue...

[Robert G. Brown]

>Okay, I don't remember if only email ads are spam, but the title was too
>cute to resist. Anyway, I thought you guys might find this site amusing:
>http://www.antiadblocker.com/
>
>Personally, I don't know what's 'really' right and moral in the realm of
>cyberspace, but figured if folks weren't generally aware of this
>development already, it's worth a notice.

I wonder how most people would feel if TV broadcasters came up with 
something that made their commercial segments immune to "mute" buttons
on remote controls? Is there a boundary that is crossed, or made harsher,
by this sort of thing? I tend to think so.

The text on the above site is based on the premise that content forced on
people will somehow find a willing audience, from which the site operator
could then make money... isn't there something specious about this? Sure
there is; reasonable people would tend to think that ads blocked imply
that there is probably not a receptive audience, and thus forcing ads on
people will not yield a dime in additional revenue.

Yes, I'm aware that site operators are motivated to show more hits per
day in order to contunue selling advertising at premium rates. This only 
shows how little this kind of advertising has to do with what the users 
wants to see, and how (as with other mass media), the audience is reduced
to yet another marketable commodity.

Decommodify yourself, and block away! You have nothing to lose but your
popups! :)
							Regards,
							---> RGB <---