Tired of Ads and Shitty Content? Click Everything

I’m tired of the ad supported model for crappy web content. I don’t feel it’s working to support high quality information, or informed decision making. I’d like to suggest a simple change in activity that can correct the failure of the current ad supported content system, and it’s not ad block. Click every ad on worthless pages. Seriously click every ad on a page that frustrates you. Drown the page in clicks but don’t sign up or buy anything. Devalue each click into non existence for that web property. They won’t get repeat advertisers if your click spam turns into nothing, and either they’ll get better content or die off.

Why negative reinforcement is important to the web’s health

Terrible content should be made to suffer or it grows unchecked. Here’s the fuel that fed my rant on national click deflation. I felt nothing but disgust after reading lobbyist Maury Litwack’s guest post on TechCrunch. Maury suggests that the United States’ ability to compete globally in green tech is failing without government subsidies and lobbyist influence. Mr. Litwack is stating that capitalism has failed. In sharp contrast I believe that most of the industry is too irrational for prudent private investment. Exceptions like Tesla Motors have been able to raise significant private funding as well as pursuing low interest federal loans.

I’ve got nothing personal against Maury, but his suggestion that large scale social change requires professional lobbying, government funding and bureaucratic control is a smack in the face to both capitalism and liberty, and is just plain wrong. Maury, please consider sharing your socialist policies and perpetuating big gov in political rags, I’m sure their readership would appreciate your point of view. My response to Mr. Litwack and TechCrunch is born out of frustration with the current relationship between private business and government.

Adequate government representation by fee, is the end of government

Has our nation’s bureaucracy become so bloated, and its elected officials so incompetent that they’re unable to make decisions and implement change to support the country’s economy? Why should startups and corporations in pursuit of broad scale social change be required to hire a staff of lobbyists to push their agenda? Even though historical government non-involvement in private investing clearly benefits the long term security and stability of the nation, political parasites invent new ways to funnel more money into their own pockets. Perhaps lobbyists understand capitalism far more than I give them credit for, they’ve turned our democracy into a profitable business.

Be Sociable, Share!

  • Luke_abyrd

    The big problem with your idea is that quality can be subjective. If we take something like hotels then we can see clearly which hotels are of a higher standard thus better quality than others but if you asked people to do the same with web content then it would be impossible for everyone to agree on what would be considered quality content.

    I sincerely agree with your opinion of Mr. Litwack’s guest post to Techcrunch but I bet there are a lot of people out there who don’t agree.

  • http://www.victusspiritus.com/ Mark Essel

    Good point.

    I hate to see broad messages that I’m strongly opposed to go unchecked. It’s not my place to determine what’s acceptable for the internet, just what’s acceptable to me.

    Still, I’d like to very low quality sites diminish in revenue generating strength (not that TechCrunch is, that was just my 4am rant/crankiness).

  • http://philcrissman.com/ philcrissman

    Highlighting the absurdity is that something much like this was actually a recent article in the Onion… http://www.theonion.com/articles/american-people-hire-highpowered-lobbyist-to-push,18204/ :-)

  • http://www.victusspiritus.com/ Mark Essel

    You sir have made my weekend, perfect share!

  • http://twitter.com/vsagarv Vijaya Sagar

    Well said, Mark.

  • http://in8sworld.net/ iN8sWoRLd

    Put his statements in perspective, he’s pimping his book. In the 16th and 17th centuries, many governments backed charter companies for endeavors that were too costly for individual speculators to assume. The East India Company and the Hudson’s Bay Company were examples of successful government backed speculation. We already know that government investment in R&D and science at major Universities pays off for technology, is it such a stretch to suggest that the US should be investing in clean tech infrastructure so up and coming software and tech firms can better compete globally? Right now China is ramping up to become the juggernaut of clean tech (the Chinese have a political system which favors long term projects whereas the US stumbles over anything longer term than next election). Sometimes change happens only through mandate and regulation. If we had let the auto industry regulate itself, unless you were rich as Bill Gates you’d be driving a car that gets 10 mpg and dumps massive amounts of particulates into the air (look at some pics of NYC or Los Angeles in the 50s to see what that does to air quality) with no seat belts, air bags, or safety glass on dangerous highways without striping while trying to read inconsistently labeled road signs.

  • http://www.victusspiritus.com/ Mark Essel

    I missed the book deal. I had a quick back and forth with Maury on twitter and admitted I overreacted.

    I’m still not happy about the idea of requiring expert lobbyists to act as courtesans to big government money. But based on this post it looks like I agree with you ;). Certain projects are beyond a single company to support.

    Agreed that monopolies break the natural competitive system. There’s a need for government intervention at that level or in lieu of that social pressure. My instincts are against your suggestion that the auto industry would have stagnated without heavy oversight, but without evidence it’s hard to know.

    It’s hard to imagine government regulation supporting more functional smart phone’s than Apple or Android variants. The rapid products cycles are the result of competition which moves far faster than regulation. I’d wager most government decision makers don’t understand the impact these devices have made on communities of people. Government can help by getting out of the way for the most part and ensuring the field of competition isn’t dominated by any bottlenecks.

    Net neutrality is an interesting example of how government and businesses are related. It’s a sticky issue figuring out what’s best for all parties: motivated companies, satisfied people, and the fight against data discrimination. I’d like to see free broadband for everyone as well as more collaborative ebooks & tablets for kids in school, at a reasonable cost.

  • http://in8sworld.net/ iN8sWoRLd

    The auto companies had no incentive to put more expensive emissions systems on their cars, or safety belts (another added expense) even when these things had been shown to have benefit to society. Companies are driven by profit (and we’re all at fault since there is such general participation in the markets) and NOT by what is best for the society as a whole. Look into the famous book by Ralph Nader “Unsafe at any speed”. I see government as having a limited role in the marketplace – it needs only to ensure that there is a marketplace (internet?), that there is adequate access to it for all (at least for its own citizens), that products are safe (regulation and inspection) and that it operates fairly (setting rules of the game). However, the government is in the unique position to chart a course for the future through mandate – setting a goal to get us off big oil and on to renewable resources is a laudable goal.

  • http://paramountessays.com/ essay

     Sad that I’ve read it so late :(