From Offensive To Disgusting Ads That Litter Online Landscape

I just sent an email to editor of Florida Bulldog complaining about an ad that kept appearing as I scrolled down an article that pointed out that Donald Trump had failed to register as a convicted felon as required by Florida law and that as a convicted felon he probably voted illegally in the Florida primary.  That was something I wondered about after reading an article a while back about how Florida was making it difficult for former felons - who'd won the right to vote via referendum - to actually do so.  

This certainly isn't the worst of the online ads I've seen.  And it's not even terrible, but looking up these nostrils every time I scrolled down was really annoying.

I was polite and understanding.  It's a non-profit publication that seems to write important stories.  I'm sure it doesn't have much clout.  

[I was letting this post sit until tomorrow when I could reread it and edit.  But I'd note that I got this response from the Florida Bulldog's editor about two hours later:

"Thanks Steve. I agree with you and have let our ad server know to exclude such ads from Florida Bulldog’s pages.

Should you check us out again, please let me know if this returns.

Regards,

Dan Christensen - Editor"]

[And as I looked at the article again this morning, it seems better.  There's a no-sugar ad that showed up three times, but it was not nearly as bad as the nose hairs.  But then the nose hairs makes these other ads seem 'ok.'  That's part of the normalization process.  Trump lies so much that it is no longer news, but Walz gets attacked for saying he got an award from the Chamber of Commerce when it was really the Junior Chamber of Commerce.]

But I'd like to see the multitude of online platforms that take ads to join together to demand a little more taste from advertisers.  Am I being priggish?  I don't think so.  It's really like litter along the road and in our parks.  It's like how we've become used to the nastiness of the GOP - the lies and disinformation and racism.  And then suddenly we saw the Democratic convention that, for the most part, had none of that.  (And the Dem's attacks and snide comments about Trump and the GOP were the necessary response to the years of unanswered bullying from the other side.)

We don't need to live in the garbage pit that online advertising has become.

Advertisers don't want to be next to offensive online content.  Why should good online content be surrounded by trashy ads?

I get it.  Advertisers believe (and possibly correctly) that the more disgusting their pictures are, the more viewers look at them.  

And one publication like the Florida Bulldog or even The Anchorage Daily News, or even The Los Angeles Times can't fight this alone.  This goes for media that are only online as well.  

But they are all part of professional associations that can collectively fight the trashing of their sites.  

Another problem is when pictures are placed next to a story in a way that makes the viewer think the picture is related to the story rather than an ad.  

And have you  ever let an ad on Youtube go past the 5 second skip ad period?  I have a few times just out of curiosity.  They're old time scammers that reel viewers in with outlandish claims and the promise of an antidote if you listen long enough.  The two I looked at longer then linked me to another video, that dragged me along without ever telling me the 'newly discovered treatment that doctors don't want you to know about because it will cost them billions of dollars.'

These ads are sitting there waiting to spread conspiracy theories, sell quack medicines, and generally replace factual and science based information with nonsense. This sort of crap used to be confined to outlets like the National Inquirer  where the average normal person laughed at the absurdity of the headlines about alien invasions.  Now this stuff saturates our lives.  It's helped made Trump seem like a viable presidential candidate to some, whereas the slightest peccadillo used to immediately disqualify a candidate.

I original thought I should offer more images to make my point.  But you all know what I mean.  It's hard to escape for anyone who spends any time online.  

But when you come across something like the nose hairs above (or the more gruesome images you see regularly) copy it and send it to the editor or the publication and ask them to fight back.  You can send a link to this post if that's easier.  And as the response I got from Dan Christiansen of the Florida Bulldog shows, sometimes they listen.

Note:  When I decided to not have ads on this blog, it was more a general aversion to everything being commercialized.  I'd once had a subscription to Ad Busters* which supported my adversion (yes I intended that). I didn't then imagine how trashy online ads would get.

*I linked to Ad Busters, but it's really evolved way beyond just critiquing ads when I used to read it.  

Yes, there are ad blockers.  My computer says I have them turned on.  But the advertisers seem to have outfoxed the blockers.  But if any of you have successful ad blockers, let me know.  Here are a few links I found looking up ad blockers:

https://www.pcmag.com/how-to/how-to-skip-youtube-ads

This one is focused on YouTube.  Says you can pay a monthly fee to be ad free.  Isn't that like the mafia?  We won't break your windows or your knee caps if you pay us a monthly tribute.  

https://support.google.com/chrome/answer/2765944?hl=en&co=GENIE.Platform%3DDesktop

Suggestions from Chrome

https://support.apple.com/en-us/102524

Suggestions from Apple