nope but freeTV is limited to 10% total ad time, and payTV limited to 5%.
Maximum ad time per hour is 4 times 5 minutes and a single movie cannot be interrupted more than two times, a show not more than 4 times.
News cannot be interrupted at all and programs shorter than I think 10 minutes neither.
Too many people think removing ads means they'll still continue to get content for free, they just won't have to watch ads.
At best, it's as you said, the platform and creator make less money (Youtube gives 55% of ad revenue to the creator). This would naturally lead to less content eventually.
At worst, video content becomes unsustainable without a subscription.
Until the content is utterly captivating and speaks to your soul in a way even your closest friends and partners can't, we haven't hit peak content.
You know that one movie you see every decade or so that you can't get out of your head? The one that left you flabbergasted, that you've watched at least half a dozen times, and that you frequently and fondly remember? It touched your mind and soul and fit your tastes like a glove.
THAT is peak content, and until we are swimming in it, we're not there yet. Most of what we have today is utterly disposable and ephemeral - transient dopamine activation instead of philosophically world shattering indelible experiences.
Why would you ever expect or even want us to be 'swimming' in such emotionally activating content? The reality is that people will just get desensitized and there will be the same proportion of dreck and the same discoverability problems as ever. Your argument is dopamine junkie logic, sitting around waiting for a dealer to bring you something stronger instead of putting effort into searching out or making things that satisfy you.
A person who willingly worked for doge or whatever has a lot of explaining to do. All you know about them on paper is that they are either a clueless dupe, or a closet nazi. Either way why would you want them in your repo?
Friends on Netflix one day years ago had the extended versions of the episodes. They fixed it quickly, but it's kind of a shame since it'd be nice if we had the choice to select which version we wanted to see.
>This is saying that people in congressional leadership positions do 47% better than other members of Congress.
It's even more damning than that I think.
>we find that lawmakers who later ascend to leadership positions perform similarly to matched peers beforehand but outperform them by 47 percentage points annually after ascension.
The same person makes more after being put in a leadership position than before. That essentially removes any possibility of 'well maybe they're just more knowledgable and that's why they're in leadership.'
A person typically picks stocks based on some view of the future: what’s going to be valuable, how the world is going to change, etc. Presumably, a congressperson does the same when drafting legislation - try to move the world in the direction they think it should go. The underlying worldview and outlook is the shared variable, and congresspeople in leadership positions are more capable of moving the world the way they think it should go than anyone else. The increased stock performance is because someone in congressional leadership’s predictions for the future are more self-fulfilling than most.
(Again, that’s the best steel man I can offer, and if you made it this far without laughing, I commend you)
I think the point is that this study suggests a causal relationship (having leadership power enables one to make more money), which is stronger than just correlation (being in leadership positions correlated with making more money).
I can at least understand being aware of what your kid is doing, but the number of people who say they just ban X outright in there house I'm afraid are gonna be shocked by their kid's actions when they leave the house. Better to teach them when they're young then to all of a sudden have them exposed to everything when they're an older teenager/18.
And also lots of people saying the internet is worse today, I honestly don't think that's true. There's so much more moderation then there was in the early 2000s.
I know a teacher who said one of their colleagues adamantly believes the moon landing was faked.
>So if someone can please suggest what is the suggestion here? Keep working with public school? To be honest, the damage was done by their previous public school where the situation deteriorated to the point I had a fight with the principal, and their current school (since 1.5 years) is actually undoing part of the damage done there.
Look up school ratings in your area and move is by far your best bet if you wish to continue public school. There is also the difficult truth that maybe your kids are the problem, but again school shopping could help with that depending on what programs they have.
I've already used some "adult" exams where someone fucked up and forgot to set minimum ages and got my kids through them perfectly fine. The kids are not the problem, or at least, having them pass the normal exams at the normal age for those exams is possible. The schools simply aren't doing it.
The issue with that approach is that it's a lot of work, and I would love an alternative. But I don't have an alternative.
Untargeted pay less than 90% of targeted ones generally. And there's not a lot of companies that can handle a 90% drop in revenue.
The real solution would be to make users pay for the content, but charging for something that users used to get for "free" is also essentially impossible.
It doesn't have to be untargeted. You know the type of content the website hosts, therefore, you know a lot about the type of visitors. You can then charge appropriately for advertising that is targeted at those visitors. Don't show diaper ads on a site called Jalopnik. Instead show ads for Armorall, jack stands, tools, etc. When you visit a media site specializing in content like real houswives or kardashians, don't show the previously suggested ads. Instead, show ads on inane fast fashion, beauty products, luxury items, etc.
Targeted ads are always dumb as they tend to push an item that you've looked into before purchasing, but never realize that item has been purchased and you are no longer interested. They never get that the person researched item but has not looked for some time for item. Let's now advertise accessories for that item. If it was a fridge, show stainless cleaning items, for dishwasher, show ads for different detergents or other kitchen related items. It's not hard. For whatever reasons, they can't do targeted well. Targeted doesn't work as advertised.
We’ve been talking about federated micropayment technologies for some two decades. I’d happily pay for content but I refuse to sign up for 30+ publisher websites. If I could opt to pay $.25 for some article without giving the site all my personal data or incurring a subscription I’d be all for it. As it is I either “steal” the content through an archiving site or simply leave the site. More and more it’s the latter. I’d also happily pay some monthly fee for unlimited content from a consortium of publishers rather than disable my ad blocker, and let them sort out how much each one gets based on my browsing habits. None of these seem like hard technical problems, it’s certainly not impossible. I think the days of believing content comes without any cost are long behind us.
> Untargeted pay less than 90% of targeted ones generally.
If targeted advertising, as a whole, is banned, you can be pretty damn sure the payout for untargeted will come up—not necessarily to match what targeted is now, but way more than that 10% figure.
Ad spend, in aggregate, doesn't change that much based on new "innovations" in advertising annoyance. If you've still got roughly the same amount of money being spent on untargeted ads, continent-wide, as you do now on targeted, they're going to pay out much closer to parity.
> Untargeted pay less than 90% of targeted ones generally.
This could well be true. Unless targeted ads are just flat out banned, at which point the profitability of untargeted ones will rise, as the air (user attention, available space in web pages) is no longer being sucked out of the room by targeted ones.
Also - if by untargeted you mean completely randomly chosen ones, there absolutely is a happy medium - choose them based on the content of the page (I'm browsing for baby wipes and formula? Show me ads for strollers and child car seats, and maybe earplugs and some gift ideas for infants, not for motor oil or landscaping or circular saws). I don't buy the excuse that they are so much less effective - especially if the personally targeted ones are out of the picture.
As a huge bonus, they are comparatively trivial to implement and would provide a way out of the current monopoly were only Google, Facebook and a handful of other "know" what to show you and everyone must make these few greedy incumbents even richer by advertising through them. This would also help fragment what information exists about your habits, so even actors determined to break the law would get less advantages by doing so.
reply