But I don't want to know (day 100)

Michael Boyce tweeted "i resent knowing about tiger woods without even trying to know about tiger woods".  So well put.   In talking with some friends at a party last night we figured that the metaphor is of the information superhighway super crowded with billboards.  You can't help but be assaulted with drive-by celebrity trivia.   But in this case, the Tiger Woods story I think was more of a celebrity crash where we were implicated as implicit if not complicit rubberneckers.  You see, Tiger crashed from a great height.  He wasn't exactly a jumper...more of a tight-rope walker that we watched with fascination waiting for the stumble.  Even those that weren't watching couldn't help but overhear the story of the one that fell from a great height.

There's not much I can do about celebrity drive-by's but I do improve the scenery by using a firefox plug-in called Add-Art.  It replaced ads with art.  After I first installed it, I sort of forgot about it.  I still catch myself thinking things like 'what IS that?' when I see a piece of art where an ad should be.  It's such a strange thing to be seeing that it catches my eye almost every time.  I highly recommend it.

No I'm not linking to Tiger Woods.

A song for this post.

Look at me (day 21)

Advertising is annoying.  Advertising is changing.  Will it still be annoying?  I remember when I first browsed on Mosaic in 1994.  It was quiet.  Academics were the only ones there.   It was made for us, by us.  It was good.  Then slowly buying and selling became the thing you did on the internet.   Then the individual home page, then social networking.  Now companies not only have web sites they have their tentacles in all areas of our travel on the web.   You do a search, an ad pops up.  You read an email, an ad pops up.   I am a potential buyer, practically everywhere.   I tell myself that I can ignore the ads and I think I do.  But I wonder how much actually sticks anyway.  Once in a while I can't help but glance and get curious.  On Firefox, I use Add-Art which replaces the image ads with art images.   When I first installed it, I would forget that the ads were being replaced and I would get really annoyed at the image that didn't fit.  What is that, what is that, what is that, what is that???? Then I'd clue in.  Oh it's art.  I'm not supposed to figure out if I need it or not.   Phew.

So here we are with a loose model of "free only because your gaze is valuable".   Yes my gaze is valuable to you.  But it's also valuable to me.  Where it lands affects me.  So discernment should be possible in the face of such a wide variation in quality.  The one saving grace to google ads is that they are pretty much all the same format so easy to ignore.  There's no flashing or dancing bears or shoot the monkey.  Other sites are not so kind.  Discernment becomes really difficult when the guy doing push-ups is constantly begging you to help him so you can win a prize.  I stopped watching TV because it started to feel like a mind control device.  I can't say the web is at that point but I am looking to my smart phone more and more.    Eventually advertising will follow me there too.  It hasn't yet....much.  But it's coming.  I only hope that it's less annoying, more entertaining, more optional.  What if it was an opt-in program?  If you say you will put up with ten ads a week, you get two dollars off your data plan.   Deal or no deal.   Of course that probably couldn't work because there are so many publishers and most of the time we'd prefer to surf anonymously however elusive that might be.   Unless the model was such that all ads used the same mechanism to pop ads on your phone and some could be allowed through depending on the deal that you signed with the telco.   A kind of ad firewall.  The thing I like about the opt-in model is that there would be some incentive to make the ads somewhat entertaining to get a following.  The question of how mobility might affect the sound/look/feel of advertising is for another day.

A song for this post.