Sign in to follow this  
Bed

Mob mentality

Recommended Posts

There is a mob mentality that is growing within our culture. This mentality has been always in our culture. It's a human thing. With social media, we are better connected to each other, and maybe this mentality is less invisible now as we are able to see it more clearly because of technology that enables us to connect. With so many thoughts and opinions connected to one another, the term "mob mentality" becomes strikingly suitable.

Speaking from someone who grew up when the internet started to take off, the enhancement in communication has greatly benefited the world. Research is faster. Technology grew exponentially, enabling us greater potential for quality of life. This is all great, and it's one of the reason why I don't really care much for this mob mentality. Plus, Mob Mentality is just another word for "Culture" and if one culture eats out another generation's culture, that's fine with me. It's what we agreed on. But there's something that has increasingly caught my attention. 

There's a lot of different scenarios when thinking of the future. And I believe there is a scenario where this mob mentality can be completely controlled by those of power and money. Have you ever thought about this? It's been on the back of my head for a while, and maybe it's not a real concern and I'm just tired?

Maybe I'm thinking of this because of all the reactions to Trump. But a question that comes up for me is, is it really because of Trump? Or is it an extreme that we all will eventually reach given enough time? The extreme of utilizing mob mentality would include using AI to manipulate, produce information, and strategize how the info is fed like botting, climaxing certain ideas by sequencing artificial events, etc.. Realizing this potential eventuality, I think we are in the early stages of it. Although it was something unintentional in the past, with TV and celebrities, movies, etc... even if there were intentions, it wasn't much. But now, I think there is clear intent and great concentration of power. Does this sound crazy?

The countermeasure that comes to mind is clearly education that can be free (probably through automation), so that everyone can be prepared to pinpoint fake stuff and call people out for sheeping? I don't know. Oddly, that would mean the countermeasure is in a similar form as the condition for the threat. The countermeasure for a real AI God would be to enhance our own individual intelligence somehow. Probably.

----------------------

Some examples of mob mentality (CAUTION: controversial):

1. Hollywood, not just Hollywood, but people being called out online for sexual harassment and such. I don't think sexual harassment is OK, and I think making examples are good too, so that other's will think twice about doing things like this. The change in culture, the culture that eats out other cultures, whatever. It's fine, as  long as we can all agree to it. To be more discrete, the issue here was that Hollywood stars -primarily female- were getting harassed. Some of the reasons include the culture involving women having to do things differently than men to get jobs and such. This led to exploitation in the end. There is potential for this issue to extrapolate into political gain, monetary gain, etc. 

Not only do these claims require no evidence or lawful judgement, it is capable of censoring ideas and discussion literally by mobs of people telling you no. Let's say, if you had millions of dollars, you're capable of conjuring fake news, fake people, to paint a false picture with the purpose of damaging a reputation. The moment we start to censor even a benign opinion that might be against the trend... on a mass scale... that's when, I would say, rely on those that can call it out, but I fear that won't always be the case if those people are drowned out. 

2. Some media outlets. News to misinform, influence politics, stock market, etc.. Then Trump.  Had an argument today. Was actually quite simple. 

It was trump calling some place a craphole or something and the person called it racist. I tried to explain that Trump's comment suggests racism, and definitely promoted it in some form or the other... but there is a difference between genetic discrimination and discrimination with poor countries or countries in war. That didn't go well. I was then called out for where I'm from, and that I'm a Trump supporter. And a desperate attempt to confuse me by talking about other topics in-between to point out that I'm a racist. What if Obama was from another country that is banned? Then he would be  banned if he wasn't a U.S. citizen and lived there. Now I supposedly hate Obama. See? Then I was referred to articles from NYTimes, WashingtonPost, HuffingtonPost, etc. proving that the travel ban was Racist. I asked if there was such a ruling and said that the travel ban wasn't blocked because of racism. I wasn't able to say another word. 

This happens a lot, with many other people. Misinformantion made a big impact to real life people which I wasn't expecting for people that have years of education more than me. Screaming, yelling, and not letting anyone say anything else. I'm not saying I'm a reasonable person. The thing I felt bad about was that the other person wouldn't listen to anything I said and tried to trap me or overwhelm me. It would be great if people can talk through things and be open to new ideas. I won't hold my way of thinking as solid but I have very simple values. This allows me to be more open, but not succumb to being converted to doing terrible acts. Suffering is bad. Don't kill. What else? What I try to go after, is an understanding... to be in someone's perspective gives me better insight in life in general and I think something like this is key counter toxic Mob Mentality. And of course, checking your facts and researching. 

3. Role Models, Idols, etc. On the internet, this relationship between an audience and their entertainer, is somewhat a basic form of mob mentality. They call it army, fans, dedication. Even when the entertainer is unethical, the mob mentality seeps in and all reason is lost. If you don't know yet, platforms such as youtube is viewed primarily by young children. I don't think there's much you can do about kids being misinformed. Kid's don't really research and compare. There's little room to be reasonable because of this. This is where I think the future's culture can be shaped artificially... These platforms are increasingly strict about content, even going as far as manipulating searches and fading out certain groups of people. Rewarding and promoting political ideas. This is more or less an accepted truth since it's been discussed to lengths on the platform. And google's justification is by saying that it's because of the Advertiser. We can't have certain content because advertisers will leave. That's hard to believe... they are one of the most popular video platforms ever. This is one of the prime examples, that you can see is happening right in front of you. Yes, they are using some form of pseudo AI to analyze your data and adjust their models. That doesn't mean whatever message that comes out is wrong or right. I actually think a lot of it is right. I'm just pointing out the capabilities and it's potential in the case that such powers fall into certain hands.

------------------------

EDIT: I think I posted in the wrong forum.

 

Edited by Bed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Moving to General Discussion...

On 1/16/2018 at 10:43 PM, Bed said:

And I believe there is a scenario where this mob mentality can be completely controlled by those of power and money. Have you ever thought about this?

There's always been the desire of control, and "mob mentality" dates back to demagogues like Demosthenes of Athens and others.

On 1/16/2018 at 10:43 PM, Bed said:

But a question that comes up for me is, is it really because of Trump? Or is it an extreme that we all will eventually reach given enough time? The extreme of utilizing mob mentality would include using AI to manipulate, produce information, and strategize how the info is fed like botting, climaxing certain ideas by sequencing artificial events, etc.. Realizing this potential eventuality, I think we are in the early stages of it.

We already have the evidence of Google and Facebook and Twitter feeding us the information they choose, some of which is the result of botting. Trump was really just a counterpush against this, with its own flaws.

On 1/16/2018 at 10:43 PM, Bed said:

Not only do these claims require no evidence or lawful judgement

This is a bigger societal issue than anything else mentioned so far. If our society enters a democratic mob rule, we're going to be playing Werewolf with real people and real stakes.

On 1/16/2018 at 10:43 PM, Bed said:

And a desperate attempt to confuse me by talking about other topics in-between to point out that I'm a racist.

We're approaching a death of logic in our culture.

---

There's a lot in this thread to talk about. A few years ago I came to the conclusion that freedom of speech--an almost absolute freedom of speech--is necessary. As a society, we need to be able to insult each other. We need to be able to say essentially whatever we want. Any policing risks loss of the freedom entirely. Slander and libel need to be punishable civilly, but punishing them criminally risks a loss of freedom.

The transgender movement is currently using the World Health Organization's definition of violence to include "psychological harm" while ignoring the United States definition of violence as requiring physical force or the threat of physical force. This definition is being embraced in college campuses and public schools throughout the country. The inevitable outcome of such a definition is an Orwellian society.

Meanwhile, and more on your point, the Internet has accelerated the natural process of society and the penchant for gossip and the sharing of a person's immediate thoughts. Anonymity exacerbates the problem, of course. But I think the only reason that it's worse today than it's been in the past is because of the sheer population and the flawed assumption that we know what's best for everyone rather than letting the smallest possible unit address and solve its own problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anonymity is barely a factor. The same behavior is demonstrated on Facebook with real names shown, and even between people who know each other. The 2016 election tore families apart as the online bile was carried over to the dinner tables. Salon and Huffington Post ran articles on what to do about your Thanksgiving to avoid being around your "racist" family members (explicitly defined as such because they voted for Trump). Further, this BS political divide is history repeating itself from the late 1960s and early 1970s, which predated Facebook by a bit. There are a mix of studies that show anonymity does and does not contribute, but the gist is, "mob mentality" is the real factor. It feels OK to tip a car over if 10,000 other people seem to be doing that, and it feels OK to call your parents "racist" because they voted against the candidate you preferred when all your friends (online or not) say they're doing the same.

Things like SWATing are more enabled by anonymity, because there is direct personal consequence avoidance by being anonymous (or thinking you are), but the internet problem is a perpetual mob. There is always someone you can retweet to for support harassing with non-logic. There is even a number of academics arguing in favor of trolling (intention online harassment) as if it were a vehicle for social justice and not bored kids doing far more serious harm than they realize.

The extremes of #MeToo are similar in origin to this, but it is a natural reaction to finally getting recognition of the horrible things those in power have been suppressing too long. It's a moral panic, and like all moral panics, it will build up a reaction of disgust until equilibrium is reached and these become a matter no longer as easily kept from the courts, but no longer as much a public tar and feathering. The sad fact is that this was unavoidable and others will be in the future. Whether it's people fearing lost tradition or injustice treated as normal, if you have a near majority upset, you will get a moral panic.

I am more concerned about Google, Facebook and Twitter accommodating censorship. We have already seen Google expunge all but the centrist Left from results, leaving the news outlets that favor single payer systems and campaign reform losing most of their traffic while doing little to stem the tide of actually false information being treated as news.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎1‎/‎26‎/‎2018 at 10:03 PM, Shattered Rift said:

There's always been the desire of control, and "mob mentality" dates back to demagogues like Demosthenes of Athens and others.

I agree. It reminds me of how animals swarm together, or how an alpha influences a pack. It's different for humans but I think it boils down to some sort of hive mind.

I was thinking - it would be useful to show others how some of these tools, used for control, is broken down... It's out there, but perhaps it might be something beneficial to educate even children? It'd be great if we can determine some principles. Below are some of my thoughts, which I'm not really confident on:

One example is fox/cnn news: Although some news agency claim to be balanced, the agency itself suffers from Mob Mentality. Recruiting reporters, performance criteria for reporters can be bias. I think this is somewhat of a side effect of the boss-employee relationship. The boss usually has some opinion - perhaps personal - that contributes promotions, demotion. In other words, the power to weight or filter a voice a group of people. You can probably compare this power to that of giants like google too, but it is similar principle - I think.

This chain of promotion/demotion goes back to the owners of the company. And these owners might even be victims of any other company's cultural output. It's a web of thoughts, but it is also self-reinforcing which is why there's a very strong base culture. It's the reason most cultural extremes don't make it into the bubble. This occurrence seems human, but to artificially(Well, I'm not sure what to call it, its both artificial) change the culture would mean more changes and extremes are accepted by bypassing this normal process. (I don't think the normal process is all that great...)

The method in question, is by making a false idea of what the real cultural base is. You can't reinforce something that you don't know what the original looks like, instead it will be reinforced into something that you've been tricked to believe is reality. It's hard to describe the mechanism that provokes an extreme response from the people by creating false pretense. 

On ‎1‎/‎26‎/‎2018 at 10:03 PM, Shattered Rift said:

We already have the evidence of Google and Facebook and Twitter feeding us the information they choose, some of which is the result of botting. Trump was really just a counterpush against this, with its own flaws.

I think trending topics are one of the most clicked on functions. Facebook was accused of manipulating their trends. It seems they have people monitor trends that might pop up that are violent/graphic/confidential... but it only takes one or two people to manipulate trends. It is possible that the direction is from a top level executive, no idea. 

Twitter, from what I've seen is able to manipulate trends too. One way I've seen them do it is by inserting a false "suggested" autocomplete on popular hashtags. Say you have "Hilary" trending. They can split this topic into two by suggesting "HilaryX" which will divert people to "HilaryX" and "Hilary." This would then lower the popularity of certain hashtags. Well, I'm not sure of the exact reason for this, if it makes any difference. If you're trending that hard, you're going to be still trending even if you split the topic into two or three. 

For google, they used a  mix of auto complete bias, and prioritizing search results. Right now, you are able to pay google for your website to go on top of searches. It's their business models, but apparently they are able to demote certain search results as well.

The botting issue - I think it is usually exploited on twitter/reddit, where certain posts are promoted by the number of retweets. Probably the same on facebook too. Re-post = promotion. 

I don't think botting has come far enough to actually hold conversations with people. It's mostly a numbers/promotion thing, I think. I think holding a conversation with a bot is coming soon though.

From what I can tell, during the election - there were considerable bots from both left and right extremists. It was basically funding for Hilary's bots vs other bots that might have been anti-Hilary or for Trump. Also, I think you have to account the neutral bots (internet trolls) that might have been a side effect of what the liberal elites were trying to do. The Russian bots are probably true. 

On ‎1‎/‎26‎/‎2018 at 10:03 PM, Shattered Rift said:

This is a bigger societal issue than anything else mentioned so far. If our society enters a democratic mob rule, we're going to be playing Werewolf with real people and real stakes.

That's an interesting comparison. I never thought of it like that even though I'm on a werewolf forum. 

On ‎1‎/‎26‎/‎2018 at 10:03 PM, Shattered Rift said:

There's a lot in this thread to talk about. A few years ago I came to the conclusion that freedom of speech--an almost absolute freedom of speech--is necessary. As a society, we need to be able to insult each other. We need to be able to say essentially whatever we want. Any policing risks loss of the freedom entirely. Slander and libel need to be punishable civilly, but punishing them criminally risks a loss of freedom.

This reminds of topics like Toxicity in Gaming. Online, people are more honest I would say, and will say anything they want. Insults, profanity, etc. It's a whole another topic as for censorship. I think the goal is for people to be able to say anything, but not /want/ to say the bad things. I think censorship is the shortcut to that goal. And some could argue, it's better quicker than slow. Without censorship, to reach that goal - we would just need to raise the quality of life to virtually everyone in the world. 

 

OOC: My computer froze and I thought I lost my response. It is saved and will check back later for more thoughts.

Edited by Bed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, InuyashaOhki said:

The 2016 election tore families apart as the online bile was carried over to the dinner tables. Salon and Huffington Post ran articles on what to do about your Thanksgiving to avoid being around your "racist" family members (explicitly defined as such because they voted for Trump).

I recall these articles, but was this really a common occurrence?

5 hours ago, InuyashaOhki said:

Further, this BS political divide is history repeating itself from the late 1960s and early 1970s, which predated Facebook by a bit.

What are you referring to specifically with this?

5 hours ago, InuyashaOhki said:

I am more concerned about Google, Facebook and Twitter accommodating censorship. We have already seen Google expunge all but the centrist Left from results, leaving the news outlets that favor single payer systems and campaign reform losing most of their traffic while doing little to stem the tide of actually false information being treated as news.

I'm very curious to see what ultimately comes of this. We spent the early 00's in various corners of the Internet, and we've spent the past decade all gathered on a small handful of sites. While wondering about what future Sparkbomb has in the Internet landscape, I've been wondering if there might be a push back towards forums in the future due to the corruption and distrust of the major social media outlets.

1 hour ago, Bed said:

I was thinking - it would be useful to show others how some of these tools, used for control, is broken down... It's out there, but perhaps it might be something beneficial to educate even children? It'd be great if we can determine some principles.

Finding any kind of agreement and simplicity on this subject is going to be difficult at best. A lot of the issue with children seems to be lack of awareness and parents burying their heads in the sand without staying involved in their childrens' lives. A lot of this used to be learned naturally (to varying effect) through the social interactions that children and youth build with each other.

Werewolf is one of the few methods I can think of to try to "teach" it, but playing Werewolf in real life rarely goes as deep or nuanced as the online communities can offer. On the other hand, showing blanket mob mentality (which often emerges in early real life metagames) could be useful.

Re: Business owners: I think a lot of this boils down to better education about capitalism and corporatism.

1 hour ago, Bed said:

This reminds of topics like Toxicity in Gaming. Online, people are more honest I would say, and will say anything they want. Insults, profanity, etc. It's a whole another topic as for censorship. I think the goal is for people to be able to say anything, but not /want/ to say the bad things. I think censorship is the shortcut to that goal. And some could argue, it's better quicker than slow. Without censorship, to reach that goal - we would just need to raise the quality of life to virtually everyone in the world. 

This comes back to what I was saying about population density. A lot of the disagreements and extremism have always existed, but but it's much easier to find like-minded people and communities today because of the Internet. In the past, communities would naturally trend toward a middle-ground away from the perceived extremes. Today, we have giant echo chambers that perpetuate the existing opinions, and in the case of extremists it takes the extremes even further.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I may or may not know someone who may or may not work for a company that may or may not hire people to manually review google's search result quality as well as gauge the effectiveness of Google's search algorithm and help them get the data necessary to adapt it. 

 

Google, Facebook, Twitter, basically any major website on the internet today that purports to be unbiased is extremely so. They all have agendas and they manipulate the results people see to serve these agendas.

It's scary because a populace that keeps up-to-date on practically any internet website is going to be likely to be misinformed than someone who just has their OWN opinion on an issue, untainted by the massive amount of propaganda from these "trusted" providers. 

 

It makes it hard to know what is right, what is wrong and what the people actually think versus what the internet says people think. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/29/2018 at 3:45 PM, Shattered Rift said:

I recall these articles, but was this really a common occurrence?

I don't have statistical data on it, but it was common here and online. That said, this is a red state and I'm not a red (or blue) voter, so I know people in the battleground area where someone whose circle of friends grew up in a blue state may not.

On 1/29/2018 at 3:45 PM, Shattered Rift said:

What are you referring to specifically with this?

Families divided by political affiliation. There was a similar outbreak of families disowning each other over the Nixon election in 1968 which carried over into 1972. It made it's own share of news and cultural impact, and is largely where the "politics, religion and ____" meme of avoided topics at family gatherings began (originally, I believe it was "politics, religion and war", referring to the Vietnam War, but it's been snowcloned numerous times since). The generation that disowned their families then later regretted the divides they created.

On 1/29/2018 at 3:45 PM, Shattered Rift said:

I'm very curious to see what ultimately comes of this. We spent the early 00's in various corners of the Internet, and we've spent the past decade all gathered on a small handful of sites. While wondering about what future Sparkbomb has in the Internet landscape, I've been wondering if there might be a push back towards forums in the future due to the corruption and distrust of the major social media outlets.

Not to put a pessimistic spin on it, but money is the key here. Ad revenue is dying, and it's not the old cyclical rise and fall but a more fundamental brokenness - they pushed ads so far that people are largely inured to them, and companies are starting to respond to the lack of return on investment in ways other than just doubling-down. Adblock is proliferating, and the "whitelist us" beggars are on the verge of pushing some angry geeks into an adblock arms race, but the fundamental brokenness is what's going to kill it, not adblock. The inevitable adblock arms race will just keep them from succeeding at a workaround - video. Content providers are already getting into this now with what's honestly the oldest version of TV advertising - embedding it into the content where the actual content provider talks up the thing being advertised.

That's great for Youtubers and video production companies, and news is already moving that direction, but static content is going to take a heavier hit. I realize you're paying and taking donations for Sparkbomb to be ad free, but the general model is ad-driven, and the future follows general models. Without advertising driving hosting, pure hosting services are going to become more expensive because the bulk of their customers are going to evaporate with the ad revenue. Instead, software as a service models will further expand into that space - your purchase of Office 365, Photoshop, or whatever else decides to enter that space, will come with very locked-down hosting (think Photoshop.Adobe dotcom as a Flickr/DeviantArt sort of setup that integrates heavily with their software, so you use it even if you're not modifying photos you upload). 

How far out that is, I'm not sure, but it's inevitable unless there's new innovation somewhere along the way, or we get away from the notion that the government paying for things is bad. 

That said, generic cloud hosting is going to get cheaper, so these sort of forums would still be able to exist, there just wouldn't be the inroads to them that there are now. They might end up going the way of instant messaging - still useful and exactly what people are doing elsewhere in less efficient ways, but out of vogue and forgotten.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎1‎/‎29‎/‎2018 at 1:45 PM, Shattered Rift said:

I'm very curious to see what ultimately comes of this. We spent the early 00's in various corners of the Internet, and we've spent the past decade all gathered on a small handful of sites. While wondering about what future Sparkbomb has in the Internet landscape, I've been wondering if there might be a push back towards forums in the future due to the corruption and distrust of the major social media outlets.

I think individual Forums will remain the same in the long run. It seems to be mostly driven by fanatics and Q/As at the moment. Twitter, facebook, reddit, etc., are mega-forums. There's always topics that you will want to comment about because it introduced some sort of easy blogging and there are many ways to find those topics.

As for the ad-apocalypse on youtube: YouTube is a money-losing service. There's too much content/creators in comparison to ads. It is not like there is a lack of ads, its just that youtube is just too big to sustain itself. There's obviously a cap on ads, but theres not a clear cap in content. How much ads there are can depend on the economy. So I think the "Ad-pocalypse" is BS. Ad-blocker, sure. There's not enough ads. Then there's not enough people getting ads. Which is it. Anyways, adblocker isn't new and mostly treated as a given issue that comes with services like this.  I would assume the issue can work out for some youtubers, as all they need to do is to address their fanbase about it.

Overall, youtube adds considerable value to google even though it's not creating a profit itself, in terms of stocks. it would be a mistake to see it as some detriment to the company. Google is a growing company. They profit from their search engine. They have lobster for free on their campuses. Much of the cost is related to video data transfer, which is projected to not go any slower. Youtube is spending tons of money on people monitoring content too. I wouldn't be surprised if half their costs are monitoring, and failed Netflix-like projects.

 

Edited by Bed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The adpocalypse isn't about YouTube (and to be blunt, I listed YouTubers as having a way around it). There are millions of sites running forums that are paid for by embedded ads ("free with ads"), and like Facebook, that revenue stream depends on the advertising industry getting clickthrough and the endpoint customers getting traceable sales from that clickthrough. The clickthrough has fallen to levels that ultimately won't support the "free with ads" model anymore. It's already a poor ROI for the endpoint customers buying the ads. It's already pressuring advertisers and sites like Facebook that act as their own middleman. These are inertia-heavy market forces, but they are moving.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, InuyashaOhki said:

The adpocalypse isn't about YouTube (and to be blunt, I listed YouTubers as having a way around it). There are millions of sites running forums that are paid for by embedded ads ("free with ads"), and like Facebook, that revenue stream depends on the advertising industry getting clickthrough and the endpoint customers getting traceable sales from that clickthrough. The clickthrough has fallen to levels that ultimately won't support the "free with ads" model anymore. It's already a poor ROI for the endpoint customers buying the ads. It's already pressuring advertisers and sites like Facebook that act as their own middleman. These are inertia-heavy market forces, but they are moving.

Companies advertising on their own platform like having a website? Or making events or something?

I haven't heard of any significant impact on the entire ad industry for the millions of sites running forums embedding ads on the internet. Since google is the primary search engine, with no real competitor, most forums are just using Google as the middleman to receive revenue. Google is making a profit from this and company's growth has been in acceptable margins since forever. In the youtube example, you can replace youtube with google, and youtubers as the millions of forums if that is better. You're talking about them right? the Creators that are being paid through google, and even sometimes directly? 

Google and others are doing fine, but it's these smaller websites that are really suffering from this "Adpocolypse." 

If your audience is sophisticated enough to use ad-blocker, you would have to change things up or ask your users to disable ad-blocker much like how youtubers would ask their fan base. You can add a yellow donate button too. Or sell merch or an actual product with product placement even... Frankly, I don't think small forums running ads was ever lucrative. Or at least, after big sites like twitter, facebook, etc. came to be. People will rather congregate to these big sites rather than small forums sadly. This is why news websites have a crap ton of ads on them. No wonder people use adblockers... FFS... Without ads, you'd have to run donation drives like how those radio channels are asking for donations all the time. 

From what I can tell, it's business as usual, if not better since ten years ago for ads on the internet. It's not some hiccup that everyone is calling adpocolpyse right? Since business is doing so well, that's why I'm inclined to say this adpocolypse is about YouTube and the drama that the community creates about getting demonetized and stuff like that since adverts don't like their politics. Advertisers have been doing this everywhere, and it's only now brought to attention because of YouTube. That's why I think it's BS. Advertisers are pulling their ads while also telling google, not enough clicks? If you want clicks, then don't pull your ads. Ad-blocker is the issue? There are other ways to advertise than clicks. I think there is some misunderstanding in all of this. 

Something that only Facebook, Amazon, google, etc. can do to get around ad-blockers, if that's such a big issue: They have data that is incredible cheap to store, and they can sell it to advertisers using targeted ads, depending on what you like on facebook or your search history, etc. With ads being more selective, you suffer less from the % if people that use ad-blockers. So it's not exactly about clicks. There's enough data that google/facebook analyzed to show their customers that targeted ads are business effective enough. They can sell by offering less clicks, but with more business results. It's essentially formulating a 'viral' concept of growing interest surrounding certain products by concentrating on targeting people. Those people that are more likely to share the product or message with others on their own will continue to grow the interest, etc. 

Or advertisers can go to websites/creators directly for product placement and sponsorships since adblocker is blocking so much of the clicks. Wouldn't this be better for the small forums? This is similar to targeted advertisement. It's better than some click data, that most often are just people mistakenly clicking and don't have any interest. 

Edited by Bed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, InuyashaOhki said:

The clickthrough has fallen to levels that ultimately won't support the "free with ads" model anymore. It's already a poor ROI for the endpoint customers buying the ads. It's already pressuring advertisers and sites like Facebook that act as their own middleman. These are inertia-heavy market forces, but they are moving.

Do you have specific evidence to support this? Adblock has long been a factor, and I've heard multiple sources I trust pointing out that dumping money into Facebook has a poor ROI, but it seems like there are plenty of fools still dumping money into Facebook as if it's a gold mine.

 

Bed, it started with Adblock. Profits from ad revenue started going down when it was introduced and adopted. Then after all the recent YouTube drama, advertisers were essentially pulling out of Google, since Google runs the ads. (I think there were some incidents with Google's search results as well, but my memory on that is finicky.) The profit margin for ad revenue has gone way down for all parties involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Shattered Rift said:

Bed, it started with Adblock. Profits from ad revenue started going down when it was introduced and adopted. Then after all the recent YouTube drama, advertisers were essentially pulling out of Google, since Google runs the ads. (I think there were some incidents with Google's search results as well, but my memory on that is finicky.) The profit margin for ad revenue has gone way down for all parties involved.

Is there a source that you're reading up on? 

I've been monitoring alphabet stocks and it's been holding. Some big/small losses here and there but its mostly because of increased number of ads on YouTube - which is money losing platform - and having to share a lot of the revenue with partners. Shares drop as they owed like 10 billion to the UK in taxes or something. Another factor is the increase mobile phone usage over conventional computers to view the internet, which has been one of the bigger issues. Ad sales for them has grown a lot while their mobile counterpart has fallen. They're still turning a profit in ads, but have been playing with fire all around with advertisers and unnecessary monitoring/marketing costs. Right now, they are investing heavily in 'quality' content next to ads. This will cost them a lot in the long run. I think it's mostly influenced by political bias too so it's kind of unnecessary. Profit margins do go down when companies grow as they gamble with adding more costs to their services in hopes of long-term benefits. Ad-block might have been a factor, but it's hard to say it was significant when you see some of the things google is spending their money on for ads.

There's a lot of changes that were made because of ad-block, and we have them to thank for the increased profiling. I would label it as a minor problem for now, unless of course there's some convincing stats with strong correlation values showing otherwise that is not from 5 years ago.

Edited by Bed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this