16 Apr 2012
by paperflowers1992
in immigration, race
Tags: assortedawesome, Goobacks, Immigration to the United States, Kwantlen Polytechnic University, Mexico, news, paperflowers1992, parody, politics, popular culture, Rylan Hornall, SOCI 2275, South Park, Television
Reference:
South Park season 8, Episode 7. Goobacks. Retrieved from http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0761287/
Jackson, J. D., Nielsen, G. M. & Hsu, Y. (2011). Mediated Society: A critical Sociology of Media. Canada. Oxford University Press.
Yep, for this one I am going to talk about South Park. Indeed, South Park is an extremely crude, offensive show that is only a slight exaggeration of current social issues (and I am a huge fan). This episode, entitled “Goobacks”, could not be more obviously about the mass Mexican immigration in the United States (except the show utilizes people from the future who have time-traveled back in time to find work since the future is too overpopulated). The show presents it, as usual, with an exaggerated, comedic twists, but also as usual, there is a certain amount of sense involved in it. The show presents the issues associated with incorporating a large amount of people from a different “ethnic” group into an existing society and makes clear that there is no solution that is both easy and ethical. The ending is hilarious, where they quite literally are like “fuck this” and they stop trying and………just watch the episode. Go, watch it now. http://www.watchsouthparkonline.net/season-8/episode-6-goobacks/
16 Apr 2012
by paperflowers1992
in commercialism, marketing, Media, technology
Tags: advancing technology, advertising, Arts, assortedawesome, Blu-Ray, Blu-ray Disc, Canada, consumerism, DVD, Kwantlen Polytechnic University, learning, marketing, Movie, Movies, paperflowers1992, popular culture, Rylan Hornall, sociology, VHS
Reference:
[Forum]. (2010). DVD Phaseout? Retrieved from http://www.empireonline.com/forum/tm.asp?m=2975472
Jackson, J. D., Nielsen, G. M. & Hsu, Y. (2011). Mediated Society: A critical Sociology of Media. Canada. Oxford University Press.
Remember VHS? Remember when DVDs were an astonishing new development, revolutionary, inspired? Surely many people at the time thought they would never be topped. Then came the Blu-Ray, and now many articles and forums such as this one have been written with the question of how long the good ol’ DVD will continue to be around, before being phased out like the VHS. this basically relates to a previous entry of mine “Today, the greatest thing since sliced bread. Tomorrow, obselete.” —> http://assortedawesome.wordpress.com/2012/03/22/today-the-greatest-thing-since-sliced-bread-tomorrow-obsolete/ New things tend to not stay new for long. In movie-related matters, it’s not as crazy as the mobile devices department, but DVDs were maybe 10 years old, if that, when the Blu-Ray came out. Nowadays, when it comes to home movies, Blu-Ray is all anyone ever talks about, and companies are pushing sales on Blu-Ray releases, as one poster noted,by having “Blu-Rays coming with features unavailable on DVD” (maybe to justify their higher cost?). And yet, they’re abig deal now, but how long before something else yet replaces them? And what about after that? I find it funny to think that one day Blu-Ray will join the Betamax tape (precursor to the VHS) in things that have been all but forgotten.
16 Apr 2012
by paperflowers1992
in commercialism, marketing, Media, myths in society, race
Tags: advertising, Canada, Disney Channel, ethnic minority, Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, ignorance, Kwantlen Polytechnic University, learning, mass media, media portrayal, Movies, news, paperflowers1992, politics, popular culture, race, racist media, Rylan Hornall, SOCI 2275, Social media, sociology, Southeast Asia, Television, Television program, token, Video game, White people
Reference:
Unknown Author. (2010). Ethnic and Visible Minorities in Entertainment Media. Retrieved from http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/issues/stereotyping/ethnics_and_minorities/minorities_entertainment.cfm
Quist-Adade, C. (2012). Lost in Transmission: (Mis)Representation of Racialized Minorities in Canada. Kwantlen Polytechnic University.
This article states, “Diversity is not a drawback” in its protest that Canadian media is too “whitewashed”. It uses all kinds of examples and statistics to try and shock the readers, but in reality I personally think these people are just standing on soapboxes and like to hear themselves talk, figuratively speaking of course. It should go without saying that minorities have a right to be represented in our entertainment media. It’s just that, while the article seems adamant that not enough is being done, I fail to see the problem. It’s not as though in the movies or TV shows you don’t see a single face with any “colour”; there are a large number of respected actors and actresses who are black, Southeast Asian, etc. I could list off several, but, you’re smart people, you know a bunch, so I’ll save myself the trouble and stick to the point. Even shows with a bunch of unknown actors (usually breakout roles for a bunch of tweens on Disney Channel or some shit) usually feature at least one character with an ethnicity that is not “white”. One can argue that many of said characters are thrown in as “tokens” to shut up the people who would otherwise whine about the show being discriminatory, but so what if they are? They’re there, they’re presented, aren’t they? So long as they are not presented as an object of mockery or as a racist/negative stereotype (I can’t think of any modern examples, but feel free to correct me on that), then I don’t see the problem. If there’s a TV show that features a group of four friends and one is black, it’s not a situation of “3 white kids and the random black kid”, it’s just “4 kids and one happens to be black”, or, even better “4 kids”. Why should it matter?
The article also talks about video games, and how “most protagonists (86 per cent) were white males”. Well, with video games, it’s a different experience: as one is playing, it is easier to ‘get into the game’ if the main character is easy to identify with. As a rule, it’s generally males who play video games, and, despite the growing number of minority groups in Canada, most people who live here are white, so it makes sense that most protagonists in North American-released games are white. The people who make the games are going to make what will sell, and what’s easier to identify with is easier to sell; that’s inarguable and you can’t blame them for that. And there ARE popular games featuring ethnic characters, such as Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas where you play as a black male (and the car-thief thing is NOT a negative stereotype of the game, other games in the series feature white protagonists as well, just to clarify, in case anyone didn’t know). I almost never play video games myself, so I’m pretty much out of examples for that category. Again, I’m sure you all can probably think of enough examples to fill in the gaps yourself.
In short, I think the article makes a great argument where there is nothing to make an argument against, at least not the way I see it. As I said, I’m not against minority representation in the slightest; all I’m saying is that in my experience, from what I’ve noticed, I don’t believe it to be an issue. By all means, discuss in the comments.
16 Apr 2012
by paperflowers1992
in genetics, kids these days, myths in society, race
Tags: assortedawesome, Biology, Canada, Clients, Evolution, Human, ignorance, Kwantlen Polytechnic University, List of common misconceptions, paperflowers1992, Race (classification of humans), Rylan Hornall, SOCI 2275, sociology
Reference:
Unknown Author. (1999). Is Race a Myth? Jordan Institute for Families Vol. 4 No. 1. Retrieved from http://www.practicenotes.org/vol4_no1/is_race_a_myth.htm
Quist-Adade, C. (2012). Lost in Transmission: (Mis)Representation of Racialized Minorities in Canada. Kwantlen Polytechnic University.
This is a brief article, written for either very young or very bored readers, on an idea that is very prevalent in sociology, that “race” as we know it is a man-made invention and in reality does not exist at all. The article states that race has “ no scientific foundation” and there is “ there is no way to genetically characterize race”. These two phrases are the main reason this short article manages to be effective, because this pair of phrases sums up what needs to be known as the truth. Race does not exist. Yes, due to human evolution due to the parts of the world they live in, and to what are essentially gene mutation over the generations based upon the same, people look different. Different skin colour, hair colour, eye colour, etc. But humans are not like cats or dogs, where different colours imply different species. There are no human “sub-species”; all “races”, as we see them, are genetically identical. “Race” is a social concept that was created by mankind as a way to differentiate one group of people from another, and eventually to judge and discriminate against certain groups based on what “race” they were. I think we all know that humans are the only animals to have a thing in their environment known as “racism”, but if you really think about it, “race” doesn’t apply in any other creature either.
Another reason why it doesn’t (and shouldn’t) exist is that there is no such thing as a “pure” race, at least, not in this day in age. Perhaps millions of years ago, when the first ape stood up on two feet and evolved into a man, that was “pure”. But nowadays, everyone’s background comes from all over the world. For example, I am born and raised Canadian and have very pale skin, brown hair, and blue eyes, but I am a mix of Italian, German, French, Irish, Czech, Slovakian, Scottish, Manx, Welsh, English, Greek, and goodness knows what else. If I were a dog, I’d be considered a “mutt”. But you, you reading this, with all the generations before you, are also a “mutt”. And that doesn’t mean anything bad. Why would it? You are made from the blood of people who come from all different parts of the world, and all these different parts are equal to one another. And these parts all show themselves in different ways in you, making you unique. In fact, you are, more or less, a race unto yourself. Everyone is. And, if we are each and every one of us a race, then there are no races. Simple, right?
16 Apr 2012
by paperflowers1992
in Uncategorized
So, after re-reading the course requirements for this class (as, in case you didn’t know, this was a blog I started for my sociology class as part of my grade and that i may or may not continue with afterwards) I realized that each of these entries I`ve were not supposed to exceed 150 words. Well, I think for the most part I have failed in that. But, when you look at some of these topics, 150 words doesn`t even begin to cover it. A note to my instructor: perhaps instead of asking for a larger number of half-hearted write-ups, perhaps 2-3 in-depth examinations would have been better, giving people in this class an opportunity to develop their opinions and form new insights as they examine the issues rather than just glancing over them and writing a couple sentences just to show we read the material. And, for the record, I didn`t read any of the material. That is all. (154 words.)
14 Apr 2012
by paperflowers1992
in commercialism, kids these days, marketing, Media, social networking
Tags: 2012, 21st century, assortedawesome, Child, children, close-minded, cognitive impairment, computer, education, generation y, ignorance, indoor-minded, influence, internet, iPhone, learning, mental development, Parent, popular culture, technology, Television, TiVo, Video game
Among the many other conveniences of modern technology, we have various “electronic babysitters”. We know them by their common names: television, computers, video games, etc., but I’m sure most parents have used the attention-grabbing capabilities of one or more of these devices on one or more occasions. Whether it’s to keep the child occupied while their home alone between parents’ shifts at work, or just to keep them quiet while having a phone conversation, plunking a child in front of the tv or computer is an effective strategy to use every once in awhile. But, there is a point where it gets to be too much: when parents are too busy to spend time with their children or supervise them outside (or just plain lazy), electronics become a child’s new best friend of sorts. This friend though, is not a very good listener, but is an excellent speaker: in fact, it never shuts up. The child is being bombarded with a variety of teachings: advertisements, images, language, and behaviours, not all of which are appropriate for their age. There are things, such as scary movies or gory video games, that will outright scare and perhaps temporarily traumatize the child, but rarely will such things have a long-term effect. What matters more are the things children may not understand right away, but that seep into their minds and take shape over time. Simply put: when there is minimal parental influence present, children instead find themselves with the media teaching them about life, and they can learn their behaviour from a show or a game instead of interacting with nature or other people.
I’m a little anti-TV myself just because basically everything on it these days that I’ve seen is complete garbage: whether it’s aimed at children, tweens, or adults, it’s patronizing, intelligence-insulting bullshit that in my opinion subconsciously forces its viewers to dummy down while watching it. Opinions aside, the fact remains that there are a multitude of things a child can pick up from watching TV unsupervised: language, violence and sexual content (and that`s just TV: now think of the internet!), although I for one would consider even excessive crude humour and fart jokes to be a problem if it were my child. Whatever the show depicts, images are created in a child’s mind while watching: images of how to look and behave because in the world of TV, it`s what`s considered funny, endearing, and/or likeable. In moderation this isn’t a problem, but if this is what a child is exposed to the majority of the time, he or she will quickly begin to think that this is what’s acceptable/sought after in the real world. For example, lots of kids like Spongebob Squarepants, but if they had a friend like him in real life, surely he would get annoying in a big hurry.
I won’t bother talking about all the advertisements and such. That’s not a solely child-related issue, and I’m sure everyone has read a dozen articles on how young kids these days can recognize hundreds of corporate logos but only name a handful of birds or trees or whatever. We all know, and in case some of you didn’t, I just told you. Google it. Or Wikipedia-search it. (I don’t care what any teacher or prof says; these two websites are the best tools for any form of online research. I could not have survived without them.)
And then, of course, there’s the incessant great debate about whether or not violent video games result in violent behaviour. I believe it has the potential to, but only under specific circumstances, like a 9- or 10-year-old playing an M-rated game and being in a situation of neglect/anti-socialism where he/she has no one around to tell him/her that those actions are not okay outside of the video game world, then it is possible for the child to begin to have difficulty distinguishing between what is real and what is just a game. However, this definitely has more to do with parental/family involvement on the child’s behalf, not the games themselves. If a young person plays Call of Duty a lot, that doesn’t increase his chances of masterminding the next school shooting tragedy. And if he does happen to go around shooting people, I think it’s pretty safe to say that he has a lot more issues going on with being obsessed with playing some stupid game. Obsession is the word right there—that is my biggest problem with video games. As with anything, in moderation, video games are a perfectly acceptable and enjoyable way to pass the time, provided kids are playing age-appropriate games (kids will only be kids for so long; save the grown-up stuff for when they’re grown up themselves). But video games generally lack any creative or cognitive power and do not encourage children to think, learn, or expand their minds at all, instead locking them in the confines of the monitor screen and letting their eyes glaze over and their hands move robotically, performing a seemingly random command from a small series of preset responses.
It may partially be that I am an exception to the 21st-century tech-splosion: we had limited technology while I was growing up (the first computer I had in my house was the laptop I bought with my own money when I was 17) so I don’t know how to work a TiVo, and my 10-year-old sister can kick my ass at Mario Kart. But, I know my way around well enough with a computer and a digital camera (and both together… <3 Photoshop <3 ) so it balances out, I believe, while at the same time offering me a bit of an “outsider” perspective, with maybe a toe outside of the ring of media melee which encircles North American society. It mostly just amazes me that basically every kid’s toy nowadays has to have something about the internet attached to it. Take Webkinz, for example. In the good old days, we bought stuffed toys and we got together with our friends and we played with our toys together. Now, with these fucking stupid things, you buy stuffed toys that come with a little code, go online and enter that code in the appropriate site, and then meet up with friends online and play with your virtual stuffed toys while the actual stuffed toys collect dust in some corner, or under a bed. Maybe it’s just me, but the whole things just screams, “WTF?!” Just the other day I noticed that even Crayola crayons, yes, our classic crayons, even have some URL that takes you to some site where you can make half-assed cartoon versions of yourself from photos. I mean, really? I was under the impression that crayons were just meant to be crayons. I understand this is the year 2012, and it’ll be a few years yet before I myself have children; I’m not saying that children should not be exposed to media or technology. But whenever I see an 8-year-old with an iPhone, I have to ask myself, why is that kid playing fucking Angry Birds instead of reading a book or doing a jigsaw puzzle or drawing a picture, or some other activity that is fundamental to cognitive development instead of a mindless time-waster? I suppose I went off-topic a little bit, starting about lack of parental presence and just focusing more instead on the fact that kids seem to not know how to play anymore. And by playing, I don’t mean twiddling your thumbs on an xbox controller or slashing at virtual falling fruit with a samurai sword; I mean getting out Legos or Play-Doh or colouring books or a baseball (hopefully outside for that one), and doing something, building something, inventing something, seeing and touching and using all five senses to live in and experience the moment, and to develop from it. Kids these days, in my opinion, don’t get that enough. And that is where the parents need to step in. (Perhaps, then, I wasn’t so off-topic after all.) To any parent or parent-to-be out there, I am telling you that it is up to you to make sure that your child experiences life outside of screens. Otherwise I can pretty much guarantee that they will be crude, close-minded, socially inept dipshits like most of the people in my generation. (I’m 19. I think we can all agree that the majority of people my age suck.) And that is my two cents for the day. I hope you liked it.
14 Apr 2012
by paperflowers1992
in commercialism, marketing
Tags: advertising, assortedawesome, Bottle, Bottled water, Canada, consumerism, Drinking water, education, Evian, Kwantlen Polytechnic University, Media Literacy, Nestlé, paperflowers1992, psychology, Rylan Hornall, SmartWater, SOCI 2275, Water
There’s a section in one of my textbooks that mentions this, and I thought it would be interesting to mull over. What is water? We know it as a) “the essence of life” and b) something we all need to survive. But, when you are the head of a marketing corporation that sells bottled water and is in heated competition with a dozen other companies that also sell bottled water, it has to be something more to you, something that sets your water apart from every other type of water out there. And this is where it gets comical, if you really think about it. Aside from their various specialized “eco-bottles”, different water companies try to sell to us from angles that one would not associate with a bottle of hydrogen dioxide: for example, Nestlé with it’s “Pure Life” slogan, or Evian and Fiji water promoting the idea of being “luxury” waters. Lately, over the last few years, water companies seem to promote the science involved in bottled water, boasting of having placed their products through “ozonization” and “reverse osmosis”, and other “enhancements”. The Glaceau product known as SmartWater is marketing entirely on this idea, advertised as being “vapour-distilled water with added electrolytes”. Eventually, it has to get to the point where enough is enough, and it will have gone too far. Eventually, you’d think, more people will realize, “you know, it’s just a fucking bottle of water, why all the fuss?” Personally, I am lucky to not only live in Canada, where we have our own fresh water out the wazoo, I happen to live in the area that contains the best drinking water in my entire province, if not the whole country. So that way I can just get myself a glass of H2O from the tap, and I can smirk when I imagine people standing in front of the cooler at the grocery store, wondering what kind of water to buy, when any logical person can realize that they all taste the fucking same.
(except Kirkland water. That shit tastes like erasers.)
22 Mar 2012
by paperflowers1992
in commercialism, marketing, Media, social networking
Tags: advertising, Apple, assortedawesome, Cell Phone, consumerism, corporations, education, electronics, ignorance, influence, iPad 2, ipad3, iPhone, iphone5, Kwantlen Polytechnic University, learning, mainstream, mass media and society, Media Literacy, Mobile device, mobile devices, mobilephone, paperflowers1992, PlayStation 3, politics, popular culture, psychology, Rylan Hornall, Science and Technology, SOCI 2275, Social media, sociology, tablets, Television, xbox360
I think we all are aware of how technology has advanced further in the past one hundred years than it has in the entire rest of human existence. New ideas are constantly being developed, and even more often, these ideas are being expanded upon and made even better, seemingly on a weekly or monthly basis. This seems to me that this is most noticeable in the mobile devices market — cell phones/smartphones, laptops, and, more recently, tablets. Not a day goes by when I don’t see or hear a commercial or a bus stop advertisement or something of that sort proudly displaying the “next big thing” and simply “revolutionary” smartphone or laptop or what-have-you. Give it a few months, and these ads will all be talking about the new and improved next big thing. I mean, the first example that probably comes to everyone’s mind is any product by Apple in their iPaidWayTooMuchForThis series. But, let’s face it, everyone else is just as guilty — although whether or not this is an attempt to keep up with Apple is up for debate, and it is not a debate I’m going to have here.
Why mobile devices? Why is it that if you go into a cell phone store every six months, you won’t find a single device the same as before, when other electronics, say, gaming platforms are only released every few years? Perhaps it’s easier to convince people to constantly replace their deck-of-cards sized phone on a more regular basis than it is to toss out your xbox every three months, adding to the eternal question: does size matter? But, seriously, I’d imagine that it’s because mobile devices of any sort sell to more people than gaming systems — not everyone is interested in games, but who doesn’t have a phone, or a computer, or an mp3 player (regardless of whether or not all three of these things are on the same device)?
So, the “why” is speculative at best; more importantly is the “how”. Obviously, it’s all in the marketing: the corporations have you convinced that you need to have a top-notch phone, or the hottest new tablet, or the slimmest laptop ever made — “oh, you have last year’s model? What are you doing with that thing, when you can have this?? “ For comparison, going back to gaming systems, the PlayStation 3 has been out since 2006, and the xbox 360 is practically a fossil, having been released in 2005. Both of these are still currently considered top-notch gaming platforms, for the time being, despite being six or seven years old. But can you name anyone who has had a computer or a phone for that long? Hell, I’ve only been carrying cell phones for seven years (since I was twelve) and I’ve been through 5 already (it would’ve been 4, but I’ve had one stolen). The fact that I’ve had my current phone for just over a year and it’s already on its last legs is telling, also: phones are not made to last anymore because the electronics companies assume that you won’t wait a year to replace it. But, really, what are you replacing it with? The advertisements will tell you that it’s new and better. But what are you really getting? A higher-resolution camera? Faster web browsing? A handful of apps exclusive only to that model? Whoop-dee-doo. If that’s worth a few hundred bucks to you, fine, but I’ve never worked that way. To further shed some light on the situation, and since everyone loves Apple, let’s compare the iPad 2 and iPad3, shall we? After a year of waiting, the iPad3 is superior to the iPad2 in that it has better screen resolution, faster data transfer, and a better graphics processor. To me, that’s not worth a year-long wait and a small fortune (although I think tablets are a f*cking joke anyway, but that’s beside the point). But, the three million people who bought the iPad3 in the first 3 days after it was released clearly don’t agree with me. This is because they believe the message that has been advertised to them: that this is the latest, greatest thing, that it features brand-new, revolutionary, never-before-seen technology and that it will blow whatever piece of crap you currently own (that used to be the latest greatest thing only a short time ago) right out of the motherf*cking water . Yesiree folks, it’s the old bait-and-switch, one of the favourite tactics of both advertising corporations and politicians. Repeat after me: I am being conned. The media is making me their b!tch. User commodification at its finest, people. But, my job is not to go all Amish and to boycott these gadgets; it’s merely to spread awareness. As long as you know you are being swindled, and that mobile device companies have you by the balls and the wallets in an iron grip, and you decide that it’s worth it to you to have quicker, easier access to Twittter — that’s fine. That’s your choice.
I’m not gonna lie, with my current cell phone on its way to the trash can, I kind of want an iPhone. But let’s face it, since I’m going to have to save up for it anyway; I might as well wait until the iPhone 5 comes out; I know I won’t be waiting long.
20 Mar 2012
by paperflowers1992
in Uncategorized
Tags: assortedawesome, Audience, Business, consumerism, education, ignorance, influence, internet, Internet marketing, Kwantlen, Kwantlen Polytechnic University, learning, Marketing and Advertising, mass media, mass media and society, Media Literacy, paperflowers1992, politics, popular culture, psychology, Rylan Hornall, SOCI 2275, Social media, sociology
Our school texts ask us: Audiences as a target, as a commodity, or as participants? Are we a body at which the media can direct its message, a device by which they can measure the effectiveness of their message, or a means by which to communicate and devise new strategies using semi-direct input? It seems almost silly to separate them, as it would clearly be all three, but I suppose it could make it a little easier to explain by breaking it down. In my last post, “Social Network Users as ‘Currency’” –> http://assortedawesome.wordpress.com/2012/03/19/social-network-users-as-currency/, I was talking about the audience’s role as a commodity when it comes to the internet. Arguably, this is the most important audience role from the perspective of the media, those who would sell us on their product or message; the other two are really more or less tools in which to better accomplish their goal of creating consumers. As far as targeting goes, if the media is indecisive about the message they want to send and who they want to send it to, the message will go largely unnoticed. Anyone who has taken a marketing course or two knows this (and most other people could probably figure it out). They will also know about how, in a 21st-century market, interpersonal communication is vital to getting your message across. By making their audiences feel like they’re involved/valued/listened to/respected, the media is more successful in reaching out to multitudes of others by giving the impression that they’re on “our level” and they “understand and care about us”. Don’t be fooled, though; they do care about what you have to say, but only so that they may extend their messages to that sought-after maximum capacity. Commodification is all they care about at the end of the day, and no amount of audience participation is going to change that. Being reduced practically to a walking wallet by the media is like getting f*cked in the ass. Working with the media so that they may spread the messages that you want to hear so that they can more easily get your money is still like getting f*cked, only you get to choose the d!ck you get f*cked with.
19 Mar 2012
by paperflowers1992
in commercialism, marketing, Media, social networking
Tags: advertising, assortedawesome, consumerism, DeviantArt, education, Facebook, Google, Kwantlen Polytechnic University, learning, LinkedIn, mass media and society, Media Literacy, MySpace, paperflowers1992, psychology, Rylan Hornall, SOCI 2275, Social media, social networks, Twitter, YouTube, Zuckerberg
Have you ever thought about how all these free websites make their money? Well, you probably know that the vast majority of their income comes from advertising revenue — those ads you see in your sidebars or page headers go for a hefty sum these days, because advertisers know that millions of people are going to see them. This is the idea of having the “users” — meaning, most people — exist as a commodity. When you log in to your Facebook page every morning, Zuckerberg has made money off of you. Facebook is certainly not the only site to do this: YouTube, LinkedIn, MySpace, FailBlog (although not Twitter…they`re privately owned): they amongst many others make money off their user traffic –the more users on the site, the more advertisers are willing to pay for ad space. Because sometimes it can be annoying to look at all those ads, some sites offer an alternative, such as deviantART with its “premium membership”-for a small monthly fee, you can enjoy several features not available to the non-paying members, including having embedded ads hidden. (I am a proud deviantART premium member — check me out for anime fanart, traditional art, photography, cosplay, and the occasional poem: http://sakuraraye.deviantart.com/) (Yes, I just plugged myself in a school assignment; consider it free ad space.)
A lot of the problems people have with internet advertisements is that they feel it’s an invasion of their privacy, because most ads you see are based on what you search up on Google or what you “like” on Facebook. Honestly, they may very well have a point, but I’m not entirely sure if I personally feel that’s acceptable. It’s not that big of a deal to me though, because it certainly isn’t going to stop me from using Facebook or YouTube, or continuing to pay my $30 a year to use deviantART ad-free. I’d be willing to bet that even people who get upset over the issue of “personalized” ads continue to use the sites anyway (or at least the vast majority of them), because, really, what can they do about it? What can any of us lowly users do about it? Which makes me wonder, why do some companies choose to remain privately own, or donation-run, like Wikipedia? When they can make millions or even billions off of advertising revenue, why would they choose not to? I’m not posing this question as an introduction to the answer: I honestly cannot understand why. I’m not saying I want to see ads plastered all over the 10% of websites that don’t have them, but if I owned one of them myself, I’d probably be all for the idea. It makes me wonder. For all two of you who are reading this, what do you think?
Previous Older Entries
