I found this article confusing because the introduction -- the title, the SunOS history, the Longfellow quote, and Morton's quote -- all suggest a self-righteous position around technical integrity and engineering choices. (Such a position would be poorly-founded anyway, since economics are a crucial part of engineering, even engineering that starts from a principle of technical integrity above all else. Besides that, various sources peg the percentage of Linux kernel contributions coming from commercial entities upwards of 75% -- which is a great thing, but can hardly be said to be free of commercial influence.)<p>The meat outlines some good points about modern advertising, but I don't get what it has to do with Linux. (Which "Linux" is this? The system? The community? Something else?)<p>It's also wrong to say that software systems don't lie: that's what virtual memory <i>is</i>, for example. Obviously educated people know the truth, but there's a real sense in which the system is presenting one thing as though it's really another, when the system is actually just going through great pains to make things look that way. This is often a good thing in software, unless the system gets caught in the lie (e.g., when it has to page things out or deploy the OOM killer), at which point real people are often surprised at what was going on all along.
I really appreciate this article. Searls has put to words a concept that has long bothered me on an intuitive level. Namely that all of these bullshit marketing techniques create a cognitive load that is not in proportion to any value that I as a customer receive from them.<p>I think it is self-evident that when it comes to matters of taste there is no really "right" answer, but these middle-men are all about muddying the waters for the (short term) benefit of their clients at my personal expense. That is really in contradiction to the premise of a market-based economy - that every transaction benefits both sides. These techniques are all about shifting as much of the benefit to the seller rather than improving the outcomes for both participants.
I read the article, and I don't see what the thesis is.<p>The article is disorganized. You can't tell where it's going, and when it gets there, you can't tell where you are.<p>It also seems to contain a lot of pretentious pseudo-intellectual posturing.<p>Maybe I'm missing something, though. Someone feel free to enlighten me.<p>EDIT: Also, I should state that I find the scatalogical references to be vulgar, juvenile, and a big turn-off.
<i>"We now know that the Feds and marketing mills are both harvesting massive amounts of personal data without revealing to us what they know, and that the two are actually in cahoots, at least some of the time. This is especially vexing, because the feds should be the ones protecting us from bad actors, rather than bad actors themselves."</i><p>This quote nails it for me. The <i>waste</i> involved with universal surveillance.<p>Further down this discussion, some participants are arguing about terminology ('Linux' or 'GNU/Linux') which is the other side of the free software/open source process...<p>I was previously unaware of the work of Harry Frankfurt, and the original journal version of the <i>On Bullshit</i> essay is available online as a .pdf. There goes the morning...
<p><pre><code> "To be fair, both the DAA and the IAB would like
advertising to be as wrought as possible, and for
consumers to appreciate the good intentions and effects
of their business. I know that because I've talked to
them about it. Those organizations see themselves,
correctly, as advocates for good behavior in a business
rife with the opposite. "
</code></pre>
this paragraph stuck with me. I rigorously ad block, on everything. I make sure my relatives have PVR's and I train them to pause and skip effectively so that they never see advertisements. I install ad block on not just my computer, but my families as well. I actively avoid content that has advertisements in it (I don't play free to play games, for example).<p>I do all this for two reasons.<p>1. I don't trust them. I honestly believe that if an advertisement ever states anything, the opposite is likely to be true. eg. "Our product helps you lose weight!" I am now convinced this product makes you gain weight.<p>2. I fear that advertisements really alter the way I perceive the world. part of that fear discussed here: <a href="http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/14y695/eli5_why_does_cocacola_still_advertise/" rel="nofollow">http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/14y695/el...</a><p>I worry that advertisements gradually change the people that watch them.<p>but the paragraph mentioned above gave me pause. I can't help but feel, if there were advertisements that didn't lie or actively mislead, that didn't have a terrible and dishonest history, that didn't exist purely as a form of mass manipulation, that I would be more amenable to them.<p>Of course, that will NEVER happen <i>EVER</i>.<p>so I will continue to block them at every vector. Maybe when the advertising industry is completely squeltched, desperate, and trying to claw itself from its own dug grave, will they play by the users rules. I wouldn't hold your breath.
linux development is majorly funded by those same old school (with some new entries) companies with the same agenda of pushing linux in a friendly direction.<p>the "community" has long since ceased to be what most people think it is.
Things I think are bullshit:<p>1. Ubuntu's decision to include ads<p>Linux got a real black eye from that imo, and turned me off of the normal Ubuntu distro for the forseeable future. Even for my lightweight distro I use Mint XCFE now just to stay the hell away from an organization that would do that.<p>2. Corporate Linux<p>I liked RedHat in 1997-98, but they went corporate quickly, and since then I personally don't like paying anyone for Linux. I want to support the hacker ethos that made Linux great, not some big corporate head.
I don't use Adblock. I could, obviously. All my friends and coworkers seem to. Honestly, the main reason I don't is because I want to support Google. Sure, they're only a large portion if ads, not all of them, but given the insane amount of value they provide to me, I'd feel downright guilty not allowing them to make money off of me.
Yup, I use the Trader Joe's analogy too. I love them. There's no contrived nonsense. It's so refreshing. It's so obvious how all the rest are manipulative bullshitters. Hooray for integrity. Why they hell do 70% of GNU/Linux users still not use AdBlock????
I am a developer who works in advertising and I can say this article is bullshit (different agenda, but bullshit just the same).<p>Most of the literature out there makes the marketing world out to be the NSA. The truth is there are some very easy ways to control the ads you see on your screen if you take the time to understand how it works. Basically, not logging into Google while searching and periodically clearing your cookies will keep your searches for sex toys from showing you ads for butt-plugs. Most of this information is stored in cookies, except for when dealing with companies with large stakes in advertising that have user accounts where they can store your history with their service (Google). I find storing search information connected to a user in a database to be invasive so I don't log into Google. I have little reason to log into Google and do so very infrequently. If your argument for logging in is gmail, just don't use the web client. Cookies are protected by domain so the only visibility into the ads you're delivered via a cookied ad network is via your eyeballs.<p>Many of the technologies listed in the article are hair splitting variants and some are not advertising at all (Web Analytics are used mainly to determine where people go and what they are interested in in your website to drive changes that benefit users and keep your website profitable, whether that be through ad placement or order form flow). Additionally, ad buying for newspapers and television are only slightly less complicated and involve only slightly fewer middle men than internet advertising and these days those are considered "traditional" advertising media. CRM is listed here as well, which is basically the online equivalent of leaving your business card at someone's office and is mostly used by companies as an alternative to cold calling.<p>Much of the diversity listed here is about monetization. IE, does the publisher get paid for impressions (views of the ad) or clicks, or completed tasks (sign-ups, orders, etc). This is better for the advertisers because they can pay only for effective ad placements, and puts a lot of focus then on how the ads are placed effectively (so those who display them can make money from those who traffic them). Without going into it too deeply, this is how money from a company (like Aspen Solutions, who's ads I see on the article page for example) trickles down to linuxjournal.com to pay their staff and hosting bills. If you prefer paywalls on your news outlets and blogs or are willing to pay Google for access to their search database (or worse need to log in so they can collect data about your searches to sell to parties undisclosed), I'm sure that could be arranged, but I will go on avoiding traps and diverting my eyes because I understand that this is the middle-ground. At some point you have to accept that the services we enjoy on the internet are built by people with families that like to eat and your selfish desire for public search privacy and screens uncluttered by advertising are secondary to their well being. Are there people making a lot of money off of advertising? Yes, but much fewer than make money off of professional sports which is also funded by advertising and gets a hell of a lot less negative press.
Minor point: could the prevalence of ad-blocking on Linux be mostly because ad-blocking makes the Web significantly faster because Flash is dog-slow on Linux, rather than any particular philosophical objection to ads?
"GNU/Linux" is the OS, "Linux" is just the kernel. The GNU project is responsible for many of the crucial parts responsible for making a complete OS, save for the kernel. Abbreviating the OS with "Linux", for the sake of convenience, should be avoided in order to give the GNU project its due credit.
Linux doesn't lie, any more than gravity lies, or geology lies, or atmosphere lies. Like those other natural things, Linux has no guile, no agenda beyond supporting the entirety of use-space.