- You don't prove that you could have done better through product reviews and word of mouth (which is now web-scale via social media), especially in a world where you didn't have to compete with other products that make false claims through advertising.
- You didn't refute my claim (via the footnote link) that if people paid up front for Google, the other content creation sites you mention, as well as the hobbyist site, that it would actually be cheaper for everyone, both on a monetary and social cost-basis.
And wow, over 50% of the cost of your product went to advertising! In a world where people discover things via web-scale word-of-mouth (e.g. social networks, product review sites, recommendations from field- or topic-specific authoritative websites), your product would be 50% cheaper, and even cheaper than that considering people would not waste money buying products due to dishonest ads.
Yes, we are in a sort of catch-22. Because people are so used to getting their web for free (even though as I point out that is an illusion), a huge majority of us would have to boycott ads to change the system to where non-ad-supported business models could thrive. But those of us who dare to do it first, before that critical mass is achieved, are likely not to survive.
But a seemingly insurmountable catch-22 doesn't mean it isn't messed up and not worthy of critique. Remember, history is replete with such situations. When we all lived under totalitarianism, a small number of people could rule over a vast majority only because to unite people into a rebellion, you have to speak up, but if you speak up, you're head gets cut off.
He doesn't negate your points because there were none to negate. Well, except for that clearly accurate "90-99%" figure you quoted. Your personal crusade is not a rebellion, and no one is trying to cut off "you're" head.
Sure, we all agree that deceptive advertising is deceptive. That's wrong, but not all advertising is bad. I think you'll be surprised to find out that 95% of people (yay, making up numbers is fun!) actually don't mind that google tracks their activity so they can show more relevant ads. I typically don't click on them, but hey, more relevant ads still makes my overall experience better and I really don't care if we get there because some of my search history was (relatively anonymously) logged on some of google's servers.
Also yes, word of mouth leads a lot of people to discover new products, and may be cheaper than traditional advertising in dollar amounts, but it's likely a much greater time investment that may not even pay off in the end. Likewise, patio11 could pay the hobbyist site, and google, and any other "legitimate" advertising platform directly but I think the time commitment to find those valuable platforms, enter into an agreement with them, and deal with all the associated details may not be worth it for him.
In the end, it's about finding a cost-effective way to get your products in front of its audience. That may be "word of mouth" (and I don't want to get into that debate, but product review sites tend to be more misleading, biased and corrupt than a lot of ads), or it may be ads. To each his own, but you don't need to condemn everyone who doesn't share your overly idealistic views.
- I did not say 100% of ads are lies
- You don't prove that you could have done better through product reviews and word of mouth (which is now web-scale via social media), especially in a world where you didn't have to compete with other products that make false claims through advertising.
- You didn't refute my claim (via the footnote link) that if people paid up front for Google, the other content creation sites you mention, as well as the hobbyist site, that it would actually be cheaper for everyone, both on a monetary and social cost-basis.
And wow, over 50% of the cost of your product went to advertising! In a world where people discover things via web-scale word-of-mouth (e.g. social networks, product review sites, recommendations from field- or topic-specific authoritative websites), your product would be 50% cheaper, and even cheaper than that considering people would not waste money buying products due to dishonest ads.
Yes, we are in a sort of catch-22. Because people are so used to getting their web for free (even though as I point out that is an illusion), a huge majority of us would have to boycott ads to change the system to where non-ad-supported business models could thrive. But those of us who dare to do it first, before that critical mass is achieved, are likely not to survive.
But a seemingly insurmountable catch-22 doesn't mean it isn't messed up and not worthy of critique. Remember, history is replete with such situations. When we all lived under totalitarianism, a small number of people could rule over a vast majority only because to unite people into a rebellion, you have to speak up, but if you speak up, you're head gets cut off.
Change is hard.