That's a rather debatable point, I don't know anyone with any of these, frankly I think it's a U.S. thing. If it weren't for american movies I wouldn't even know it was a thing.
I don't even know which is worse - making kids with slight ADHD take stimulants (US) or ignoring the symptoms unless they're truly a problem (bad grades and behavior aren't - you're just mentally stupid or a culturally uneducated prick in Europe).
People with slight ADD/OCD can get by, but they'll always feel something is wrong and that no one understands them (plus some may never reach their full potential), while those on meds will suffer later on...
That is because when a majority of people exhibit certain traits, those traits do not constitute aberrance. Marketing, Pharma influence & FUD peddling can make a majority feel singled out. Fear & consumption 101.
I strongly agree with 2nd point, personal accountability and good stewardship/parenting are lost values in the western world. Our youth are bored and brainwashed by the media...I was too. We're constantly reminded we are 'special'(individually, just like everyone else), we can buy happiness/solutions to our problems if we have the latest/greatest (*) and 'Not my kid' is almost a national anthem. Perception is everything & it too is easily manipulated by selfish and external influences. I too am impressionable and find much of marketing insulting, sometimes assaulting. That's why I do not watch commercial television and browse the Tubez w/ AdBlock & NoScript...I am startled sometimes when I browse without them, it's a completely different experience.
edit: reworded last two sentences
I do think that TV and internet have done nothing to help my attention span, but it might just be that I dismiss things I have no interest in. When I am doing something interesting I can focus easily for a long time.
Let's please avoid hijacking this discussion and avoid arguing about the prevalence of things like ADD (as richly ironic as these discussions may be :-)
As, to "Do you want it for free Dude"--Yea, at this point I do. When websites evolve into "must have", or can teach a complex subject fast people will sit through a lot of bull chit ads. I feel the teaching of programming languages in a fast, concise, manner is really in demand. I'm getting off subject, but lately I trying to learn the basics of programming. The core concepts to all languages, then python and ruby. Zeb Shaw's website is the only teaching site I can I can stomach. Those dudes at Harvard and MIT, who throw candy, mean well, but are painfully slow. Yea, I'm really off subject, but there's got to be a natural teacher out there who can spit this information out fast, or at least offer a free way of speeding up their presentations? I'll shut up. Bye-
So you're entitled to that content for free? If you really hate ads that much, and you use a site with any frequency, it only seems right to buck up and pay or not visit the site.
The web browser sends a request to the server requesting something, and the server can either say "200 OK" and send you the document, or it can do something else, such as refuse.
If it does send you the document, this does not create any other obligations on your part; for example it doesn't create an obligation to issue further requests so as to download images referred to in <img> tags in the document. Even if you do so download them, there's no obligation to actually render them on any particular device.
If the server owner objects to this he needs to configure his server to do something other than reply "200 OK" to arbitrary requests.
Browsers are under the users control, always have been. That's the strength of the medium. Yes, that means it's both harder to force people to read ads than with pre-dvr television and harder to hide the fact they aren't reading ads than with newspapers.
Should I also be reading all of an article that I found boring because not clicking on page 2 is cheating the site out of page views?
I get that the business model of advertiser supported content is threatened by ad blocking, but since when is it the consumers/users fault when a business model fails due to being poorly adapted to a new medium?
This is mentioned a lot. I don't really see what's 'creepy' about ad placement algorithms? It's a mechanical process that results in a (hopefully) more relevant display of advertising to you. The word 'creepy' suggests unpleasantness or something frightening and I just don't get it.
This is much more intrusive and not comparable to a company ad in my local newspaper or a magazine to which I'm subscribed.
Ad to this that their own security practices suck in multiple dimensions. Maleare. Subpoenas. Target's database disclosures.
And the fact that the information is being used against my interests, as noted.
This was in an incognito Chromium session where I don't run NoScript.
I was searching for some basic heat transfer references and found a page with a nice write-up on Newton's law of heat transfer. I copied the URL into the post I was composing as I was reading it. A "chat" dialog pops up asking if I need tutoring assistance. Um. No. So I ignore it.
The site then navigates me away from the page and onto a registration page.
Whiskey. Tango. Foxtrot.
My immediate and predictable response: I fired up 'sudo -e /etc/hosts' and added both hostnames to my blocklist. Though I took the courtesy of emailing the site's contact address and asking them what the actual fuck they thought they were doing.
Apparently Pearson Education have the educational market so fully sewn up they can get away with this kind of bullshit.
But seriously? What the actual fuck?
Upshot: why do people block the hell out of this stuff? It's goddamned annoying as hell.
I compiled a list some time ago on G+ that's worth repeating here:
Forbes asks: Why do programmers hate advertising so much?
First, I think it's hardly just programmers. I suspect most people find advertising to be a negative.
But as to us techies? Why do we hate thee? Let me count the ways:
1. It's intrusive. Many/most of us probably have some level of ADD/OCD. Or just plain environmental sensitivity.
2. It's distracting.
3. It promotes a host of anti-usability features: content muting, multi-page click-through articles, overly formatted pages, overlays, pop-ups, persistent floating top/right/left/bottom elements, audio, video, multiple audio/video.
4. It's creepy, and you're creeping me out. Tracking through various deceptive means, even though I've made very clear that I don't wish to be tracked. Incidentally, subscription content suffers a similar issue: I don't want an audit trail of all things I've read, even on one site, let alone across sites.
5. The ads themselves frequently position themselves to price-discriminate -- though how and when I can never be certain (which undermines the efficacy of all ads).
6. The mechanisms of advertising networks pose security issues: cross-site JS, iframes, Flash, and Java. Even just the proliferation of different JS sources creates a serious management and cognitive overload for the security- and privacy-conscious reader. A single article from a news site may contain over 20 JS sources.
7. The goods and services which are most highly advertised are those which I'm least inclined to buy. Especially for (so-called) food and entertainment, but also general consumer products, electronics, and various services, especially financial services. To the point that when I see advertising my first conscious reaction is "why do they have to try so hard to convince me that that is something worth buying?"
8. It's not relevant. There are a very limited number of times when I'm in a purchase mode. The real value of the Internet would be to (correctly) identify those times, and then find me the best deals on what I want, in the way that I want to obtain it. Which, frankly, dear, isn't online most of the damned time.
On that last point, I've been shopping in recent times for a number of moderately high-ticket items. Including spending a lot of time researching options on-line. My biggest take-away is that online purchase researching sucks massively. Contrast to the experience at a store with a well-trained, skilled retail staff. "Is this what you like?" "No, I'm looking for something that's more XXX". And as much as I disdain retail much of the time, the people who are good at it figure out what you want, what you can afford, and what they have that suits you, quickly, without wasting your time (and if you're lucky, making the exercise enjoyable).
It's something I've also addressed recently, "Search quality vs. search personalization". The upshot: there's a lot more information in the moment that's relevant to purchase logic than in a person's profile or market demographics. Advertisers/shoppers could avoid massive amounts of creep factor by focusing on this, probably with vastly superior conversion factors.
The final thought: advertising is well and good, but where the rubber hits the road is in making the sale. Which is where Amazon (and other sales-oriented sites: eBay, Craigslist, Apple's iTunes) wins all over any advertising-based site.
Update: oh, and the email I sent to Pearson? It bounced. I'm shocked, shocked ....