There's been some attention paid to all the "screen time" that our kids get these days -- and that this "screen time" makes us less, rather than more, happy.
Ever think about it folks?
And then you should remove Facepig, Messenger and all the other social apps from your phone.
Think about it folks. Look at Facepig and beyond all the ads, sponsored clickbait garbage (which I've written on repeatedly) and such what's on there?
Someone doing something fantastic, right? Someone you know on a cruise. Another person winning a race. A third person having a beer. A fourth on top of a mountain somewhere. A fifth, sixth and seventh posting 500 pictures of their cute baby or child (who by the way most-certainly could not have consented to their visage being permanently stolen by Zucker****er).
Think about the image this presents to you as what life is supposed to be.
It's all smiles.
Now I want you to contemplate something: Have you ever seen someone take a **** on Star Trek - or any other TV show? You've got eight Star Wars movies, and yet I don't recall one person having to stop and take a crap. The only time you do see that is when it's a joke as part of the plotline -- like in Jurassic Park with the lawyer.
Now let's expand that a bit.
You've never seen anyone actually do laundry. Nor have you seen someone do the dishes, or even unload the dishwasher. You've never seen them sit in traffic for an hour commuting to or from work.
Why not? Because if you actually put someone's daily life on television you'd never watch it; 95% of it is the normal daily grind -- we get up, we make a coffee, we ****, shower and shave, we get in the car to go to work and listen to music while stuck in traffic, we buy groceries, etc.
What do you see on Facepig, Snapass and similar? The 1%, all the time, which inexorably leads you believe that your life should be that 1%, all the time.
But it can't be.
Nobody lives like that.
Even a billionaire who has no care in the world for making another nickel, ever, and has a building full of paid servants still has to ****, shower and shave. The kid in High School has to sit in class and then do his or her homework. Even the retiree doesn't get to live like that; he's gotta go to the doctor and get poked here and there, cook dinner, etc.
So what are you doing when you are continually looking at Facepig or Snapping away? You're engaged in someone else's -- and your own -- fantasy. A fantasy that is guaranteed to make you miserable because nobody can live a life that consists of even five percent of the projected thing you are viewing.
The fact is that nobody takes a crap on Star Trek because nobody would watch the show -- or the movie -- if they did. Yet if we ever do master faster-than-light space travel the people on board that ship are still going to spend 90% of their time doing things that amount to "****, shower and shave."
They do it now on the ISS, they did it on Apollo, in Gemini and Mercury and they will in the future just like you do now.
Zucker****er likes to talk about bringing people together and other similar tripe. It's crap. In fact it's worse than crap, it's a knowing lie. Zuckerpig knows that even if there was no clickbait, fake deals and other garbage on the site that you'd still be made miserable simply by being there because the "face" you see is one you cannot possibly live. It therefore cannot bring you joy -- it can only bring you tears to some degree.
Don't tell me about how it helps you "keep up" with your 457 "friends". You don't have 457 friends. In fact, I'm willing to bet that you can count the number of people who you can legitimately call "friend" on your fingers.
If you assert that's not true then I will make a declaratory statement in reply: None of those people are actually your friends -- they're all acquaintances, every single one of them.
I recently heard that a record number of kids committed suicide last year in our local High School. I'm willing to wager 100% of them spent a huge amount of time with their faces buried in a hand-held fantasy machine that made them miserable while stealing a record of everything they did to try to make a profit off that same misery.
Those kids are dead; their misery has ended but the profit still went in Zuckerpig's pocket.
Folks, there's no value here for you in any of these "systems." It's all net negative and it gets even worse when the data is mined off and sold as I've pointed out repeatedly. We put these little spying machines in our pockets but how many people will stick them on silent or ignore them when they ring say much less toss 'em in "Airplane" mode?
It wasn't that long ago that if someone wanted to talk with you they called your house and if you were home you could talk to them. But only one person at a time could do so in said house because there was only one phone line. If there were five people in your family and one of them was on the phone, the other four could not make or receive a call. If you were out getting groceries or even just mowing the lawn there were no voicemails either; the phone just rang and nobody answered it. There were no text messages, Facepig posts or anything else of the sort. If you were separated by more than a few tens of miles of distance the long-distance charges made sitting on the phone for an hour at a time punitively expensive and nobody could afford it. Your only reasonable answer to a desire to say more than a few sentences for a birthday or other major life event was to sit down and write an actual letter and stick a stamp on it, then wait days for delivery and a reply. You only did it on any sort of regular basis if the person you were corresponding with was an actual true friend or more; acquaintances, even those you call "family", you spoke with for 5 minutes on the phone on a birthday or anniversary, and perhaps you saw them over the holidays for dinner when one or the other of you traveled. Most people had two or three such correspondents and no more simply because you had to invest a material amount of time to write said letters and there were only a few people who were worth it.
The number of people worth it in your life has not changed folks; instead interaction has been cheapened to the point of worthlessness.
How many posts do you think I've made on my Facepig timeline this year?
One talking about Facepig's spammy ads and two more being single-sentence replies to someone else's post.
Let me count that again for you folks: THREE.
Yeah, I've made a handful of other comments, but in terms of timeline posts -- it's three and only one of substance. The other two were the prototypical 2 minute pre-cellular phone call.
I'm not trying to expand my reach on the Internet for monetary gain. If I was then yes, it would make some sense for me to post things on Internet sites; that's called advertising. But I'm not.
I have zero interest in posting my "personal triumphs" and gloating about them on social media. My ego is simply not that large. If you're interested in knowing what I'm doing and whether I happen to take satisfaction in some accomplishment then you probably know how to get ahold of me personally and we can share that. It might actually mean something to both of us in that case.
More to the point if you wish to call me friend then you won't expect me to find your events, triumphs or whatever on Facepig. You'll think enough of me to call, recognizing that if I don't answer immediately it's not because I don't like you but because I might be having dinner, mowing the lawn or in the middle of one of the three Ss of life -- and if you choose to leave a message I'll call you back when I can devote some time to us. Ditto with a text; I might reply right away, but if not it's as likely to be because I'm under my car changing the oil or cleaning the gutters on the house as anything else. You know, part of that daily ****, shower and shave routine.
Do I look here and there at Facepig? Yes. But what I see is what I talk about above. Is it worth my "engagement" in the general sense? No; I recognize that not one bit of that will ever translate into changing the necessity of my life which, just like yours no matter how rich or poor you are revolves around ****, shower and shave.
But what said "engagement" will do, if I embrace it, is make me less-happy and more-miserable.
It must, because by its nature it portrays a fantasy that nobody can actually live. Zucker****er knew this originally and in fact had "girl rating" pages on his Haaaarrrrrvvvaaarrrddd site which were exactly as "nice" as you might expect they'd be. You don't really think he forgot that, do you, nor their popularity with his "friends" -- right? (BTW what's his wife think about that? I bet a few billion dollars makes her not care and that tells me everything I need to know about her.)
No, what Zucker****er did was turn your increased misery and reduced happiness into billions of dollars for him. The founders of Snap and all the other so-called "social media" have done likewise. They don't even give a **** if the misery their "engagement" contributes to causes nine teens to kill themselves in one semester at a given local school. What's even worse is that they've done all of that in concert with people like John Legere, the brash CEO of T-Mobile who, along with Verizon, Sprint and AT&T, charge you in both money and slower performance, never mine crappier battery life, to deliver ads for the sole purpose of capitalizing on your decreased happiness. Any of those carriers could put a stop to a large part of it in an afternoon by putting in place a switch you can turn on in your account that blocks all common advertising domains.
This would not be a "net neutrality" violation since you would choose to turn it on, not them.
But none have, and none will.
They won't because misery is profitable.
People who are truly happy don't need to spend on "aspirational" things. They certainly don't need $1,000 iFrauds to make them feel good. Miserable people are another matter; that smiling face with a nice big fat $1,000 iFraudy phone is a "message" they can try to get you to bite on, with the hope that it might make you smile -- at least until you see someone on a cruise, at which point you're back to being unhappy because you need to ****, shower and shave while Jane is on Facepig with a $5,000 vacation smile and a fat Mai Tai in her hand.
None of these apps are on my phone folks. If I want to look at Facepig I'll do it on a browser, which I can close when done so it can't root around in my device and steal information on whatever else I'm doing. I don't do "messenger", Snap or any of those others for the same reason.
You shouldn't either, and if you stop doing all of them I predict you will smile more.
Oh, and you'll also pay less -- in both misery and money.
.... (stupendously high medical prices | ridiculous college costs | cops shooting unarmed Australian women | etc)
We can't do anything peaceful and lawful about it? Oh, I fully understand why these outrageous practices exist. You see, the hospital administrator, doctor and pharma companies have no fear when they refuse to quote you a price or bill you at 10x what an insured person who has consumed their deductible would pay through their insurance, the college dean and provost have no fear when they cause your 18 year old son to rack up $50,000 a year in student loans and the cop has no fear when he shoots an unarmed Australian woman through the window of his cop car -- and across the body of his partner.
Everyone seems to think that the concept of "fear" in this regard means doing something illegal and for which they'd immediately go to prison, which is why they're not (obviously) interested. Oh really?
I would like to put a different postulate forward: You really don't give a ****.
Seriously, you don't.
In fact you approve of what they're doing each and every day.
You don't care that your 17 year old son is about to get bent over the table by a university in regard to college cost. You in fact endorse your kid being forced to pay half the kid's tuition sitting next to him in Calc class simply because you have more money than his parents do. In fact you have already gone so far as to conspire with that administrator in screwing your own son by filling out a FAFSA form!
You don't care that the guy down the street -- or your own mother -- is billed $7,500, their entire deductible on their Obamacare insurance policy, for five stitches they need when someone who has consumed their deductible or is on Medicare would be billed $400 for the same thing.
You don't care that the Australian woman got shot and killed although unarmed in Minnesota. After all, you're not dead (yet.) Never mind the cops who got caught planting drugs on people in Baltimore -- more than once.
And the list goes on. Wells Fargo, for instance -- a company that not only opened up millions of un-requested accounts and purloined millions in fees by doing so they also force-placed car insurance on car loan customers who didn't need it, bilking them and in some cases repossessing their cars for not paying that which they didn't owe while destroying their credit. You in fact don't care about the hundreds of thousands of Americans Wells screwed.
How do I know you don't care?
Because there are dozens of things you could do about it that are perfectly legal if you did care.
You could, for example, refuse to associate with said people, defined as anyone who is such a person or is employed by and thus gains their livelihood through the antics of such an organization or company.
You could stick up the middle finger every time you saw them or any member of their family.
You could picket their house.
You could picket their employer.
You could make their life so miserable that they literally couldn't associate with anyone in their hometown because everyone who chose to do so would also be shunned.
You could put Wells Fargo out of business by pulling all your money from said bank, refusing to do business with it, picketing it and refusing to associate with anyone who works there. If you discovered that a business used them for their check processing (which is easy to determine from your canceled check stamps) you could tell that business you won't shop there as long as they use Wells because you don't want Wells Fargo to make money on your money. In short you could refuse to pass money through the company to the extent possible and you could make working there a living hell for anyone who decided that their salary offer was reasonable given the firm's conduct.
The same is true for the local hospital, the college in your town and more.
It's not illegal to dislike someone. It's not illegal to flip someone off. It's not illegal to decide that you won't associate with somebody on a personal basis. In fact, unless your decision on a business basis is predicated on one of a handful of protected classes -- race, sex, national origin and a few others it's not illegal to tell someone to screw off in a business or professional context either.
Doctors are not a protected class. Nor are hospital administrators. Nor are bankers that work for a specific bank. Nor are cops, dispatchers and others that work for a cop department that likes to hire trigger-happy Somalis.
Don't talk to me about how "outraged" you are about these sorts of things.
You're not even mildly pissed off.
It was not that long ago that a certain person who I knew decided to run a five-alarm line of crap with regard to immigrants in my presence while I was out drinking with friends. He was never really all that close of a friend, but he seemed like an ok guy and we'd hang out and drink a beer or two once in a while together -- right up until that point in time.
I've never spoken to him again and I now intentionally and quite-visibly avoid him. As far as I'm concerned he's a ghost!
That's not the first time I've decided that I will have nothing to do with a person, organization, business or anyone associated with same and it won't be the last.
Does this, for example, apply to all cops? No. We have a local PD here that, at least in my experience, is quite reasonable. I have no quarrel with them. But with anyone employed by the PD in Baltimore, or in that particular jurisdiction in Minnesota? Nope; they can all bite me.
Likewise there's a local neighborhood with an association here that decided that a running group I hang out with didn't like us running on the roads in their development. It's their right as a neighborhood association to make the collective decision for everyone who lives there. But when they voiced this to our running group my response was that while I certainly respect their right to make such a decision and would, of course, honor same if anyone who lived in that development wanted me to work on their computer in the future, either at home or in their business, the price just went up by a factor of 10. If they don't like runners then I don't like them -- all of them!
The other people at the run that evening looked at me like I had six heads and four arms for making such a proclamation. What? We weren't running on their lawns; we were on the sidewalks and paved streets and nowhere is there posted a "No Trespassing" sign nor is there a closed and latched gate making clear that they don't want anyone without a code or key to come into their little enclave. I respect their communal right to decide that a couple dozen people, not blocking traffic or in any way impeding their lives, running on a sidewalk for fitness and fun, is something they don't want to see. But my view is that such snobbish garbage has a price, and the price is that as a "prole" according to them they obviously don't need said prole's help. If they solicit said help anyway they're going to pay an outrageously high price and I will tell them why.
See, people band together into neighborhood associations, corporations and similar structures for the express purpose of limiting personal liability and at the same time making their decisions more forceful than one individual can express on their own. By doing so they decide to collectively act, and as such it is both perfectly reasonable and fair that the consequences of those actions also be collectively applied against every member of the group who benefits from same when other people don't like what they're doing!
Americans used to have this sort of constructive and very effective view toward behavior that they found outrageous. It's disappeared, except in places like Amish communities, where if you violate their view of sensibility you and your entire family will be shunned.
In America you're free to behave as you wish but you're not free of the perfectly-legal consequences -- that people can and will express their disgust by simply refusing to have anything to do with you.
We could solve a huge percentage of the problems in this country if we re-acquired our willingness to fly the bird and used it liberally when outrageous conduct such as any of the above surfaced applying our sanction equally to all members of any voluntary association of persons that was responsible for the conduct we object to.
When you decide to work for a corporation, buy a house with a mandatory homeowners association set of covenants on the deed or voluntarily become a part of any other collective group you do so with an expectation of benefit from those collective actions for yourself and your family.
That's fine and well but collective benefits must come with collective costs or said structures are nothing more than a means of screwing everyone that's not part of that particular "clan."
For how long would a doctor keep up with differential pricing and refusing to quote a price at all if the only people that would associate with him were those who worked in his office? What if his kids had nobody else to play with except the handful that had families who also worked at the same hospital or office? His wife had nobody to play bridge with -- except other hospital administrator's wives? The current "Chargemaster" rapejob and differential pricing would disappear in an afternoon because the employees of said place would all quit except for said administrators and the hospital would be forced to close inside of an hour!
For how long would college cost $50,000 a year if every Dean, Provost, Professor and janitor couldn't manage to walk down the street without the bird in his face? If his or her wife or husband faced the same, and their kids had nobody to play with either? Let's extend that to grad students writing grant papers and "working" while enjoying sponsorship from said school. FAFSA would be torn up, debt offerings would disappear in an afternoon and college would be able to be paid for by delivering pizzas -- exactly as it was 30 years ago. Why? That's obvious: Every professor and staff member would resign if that crap was not instantly brought to an end.
How many cops would shoot through a window at an unarmed woman if they knew that doing it would mean every single officer on the force and every administrator and employee would forevermore be unable to walk from their car to the supermarket without getting flipped the bird by everyone else? If their families had nobody to hang out with? Even the local "cop bar" would shut down because the only people who would drink in there are the cops and there aren't enough of them to keep the place open. The problem would go away immediately because the price would be a complete shunning of everyone in the department, no matter their job, and every cop on the street would know that by their association with said department and (usually) union they would have become every other officer on the force's keeper.
How many banks would dare to bill hundreds of thousands of people for unnecessary and unwanted "insurance" on a fraudulent basis if they knew that the price of doing it would be that they'd literally be out of business and everyone who worked at said institution would be permanently unemployable? It would never happen again -- you can bet on it.
Folks, we have perfectly-legal means to address damn near every outrageous bit of behavior like this. I'm not talking about the little things that******us all off on a daily basis; those are typically individual acts and we deal perfectly well with them individually by deciding we don't want to hang out with said person any more.
No, I'm talking about frauds and scams that steal one dollar in five in our economy, that saddle our young adults with five or six figures of debt for degrees that are often worthless and in any event cost five to ten times on an inflation-adjusted basis what they should, companies that steal hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars and either toss people out of their homes or steal their cars through fraud, pig departments making "affirmative action" hires that kill people and more. These are not small-ball things but rather ridiculous and outrageous examples of misconduct that should be prosecuted and there's plenty of reason to believe that they're also rank violations of 100+ year old law or worse.
Yes, it's true we have a corrupt political and "justice" system. Yes, it's true that we don't have any prosecutors who will charge the hospital administrator under 15 USC Chapter 1 or, for that matter, under state consumer protection laws when they refuse to post a price and charge one person 10 or 100x what they charge someone else for the exact same thing. Yes, it's true that our corrupt politicians made student loans non-dischargable in bankruptcy, and following that every single person who went to school has been bent over the table and taken advantage of in what can be quite-clearly characterized as financial rape. And yes, it's true that if you or I took a potshot at someone through a car window without being clearly able to see them and they were unarmed we'd be facing 20-to-Life for Murder 2, at minimum -- yet there is not one federal or state prosecutor who has thus far brought said case.
But there is no law that says we, the people, can't peacefully and lawfully refuse to have anything to do with anyone who is in any way associated with, earns a living from, continues to eat via or profits from such an enterprise that they voluntarily join and remain associated with.
As an individual you have every right to refuse to associate with anyone for that sort of reason.
As a direct result of your decision to continue to associate with these people and their families who are directly reliant on said organizations and their outrageous conduct for the very food on their table each and every day you are choosing to endorse and permit said outrageous conduct on a continuing, daily basis.
You are in fact voting for it to keep happening in the most-effective way possible, by continuing to voluntarily break bread with, drink beer with and mingle with said people on a basic, human social basis while enabling those organizations to continue to not only exist but thrive.
In other words you are saying through your actions that their conduct is perfectly fine by you and in fact you actively support it.
If it's perfectly fine according to you why should they change what they're doing?
Total nonfarm payroll employment increased by 209,000 in July, and the unemployment rate was little changed at 4.3 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Employment increased in food services and drinking places, professional and business services, and health care.
Oh look - we get people drunk, feed 'em unhealthy food and then suck up more of GDP in overpriced, monopolist "health care".
In fact that's been good for 327,000 "jobs" over the last year. You need look no further for what's wrong with health care in America; nearly all of those jobs have never and never will provide one second of actual care to an actual person -- they're almost all administrators.
Remember, the usual bleat is that we don't have enough doctors and nurses. Well if that is true then we have added 327,000 worthless "employees" over the last year that simply serve to vacuum all the money out of your wallet. We cannot address the cost of "health insurance" without addressing this issue, and doing so trashes the so-called "robust employment situation."
Employment in other major industries, including construction, manufacturing, wholesale trade, retail trade, transportation and warehousing, information, financial activities, and government, showed little change over the month.
Other than government, in other words, those productive industries didn't add people to their payrolls.
The real (household) economy claims a gain of 384,000 jobs last month, with all of them (381,000) coming from a reduction of those "not in the labor force." In other words people came back into the labor force and found jobs, probably ripping you off in the doctor's office and hospital and, if not, they were serving you booze as a salve for the sore butthole inflicted upon you in same.
Note the employment:population situation continues to improve. This is indeed a positive; we are getting up toward the bottom of the previous cycle range at 62%, which would be quite good if one ignores how we get there.
Sadly, you can't ignore that -- we're getting there with monstrous "adds" in parasitic employment that sucks off productivity and actual output or gets you drunk after you've been financially raped.
Nobody in the media wants to talk about that and won't because even having the discussion will inevitably lead more than a handful of people to realize that not only can this not continue forever but if the people demand it stop the result will be an immediate and violent unwind of the so-called "progress" we have made until actual productive capacity replaces all the parasitic, essentially-worthless arm-waving nonsense.
Is there anything else interesting in this report? Yes. Women outperformed men (by two ticks) in participation rate gains this month (no surprise; they make up more of the medical parasitic class along with bartenders and similar, and both were strong.)
Teen employment went up massively on employment:population rate (from 35.6 -> 36.7%). If you remember the seasonal hiring showed up last month (a month late) and this month it showed up in the household survey, so that's expected. As a percentage of the labor force they're a small component (about half a percent) so when they fall off in September they won't bang the numbers all that hard. Oh by the way, teens don't serve liquor as a rule and they also don't rip you off in the hospital. Count those among the real jobs, in other words.
Oh, and one other thing. College degrees underperformed on a major basis. The participation rate for those with a Bachelor's or better decreased by two ticks while those with less than a high school diploma (which includes most of those teens) ticked up by six.
That $100,000 in debt?
It's working out real well for you -- yet another area of the "eCONomy" filled with non-productive "employees" and ridiculously bloated costs all driven by acts that one could argue ought to be treated as felonies, just as in the so-called "medical system."
If you're Donald Trump that Mueller has reportedly convened a Grand Jury in his probe won't keep you up at night. It is pretty-well settled that the DOJ cannot indict a sitting President.
However, if you're anyone other than Trump and have either assisted him in the election process, in the transition or afterward and have had any sort of contact, directly or indirectly, with anyone Russian or for that matter anything else that might be construed to be a problem you won't be sleeping well for quite some time.
Nobody else is immune from indictment while Trump is in office -- not his kids, not his wife, nobody.
The opportunity to fire Mueller, which I think there's a pretty clear argument for based on the appearance of conflict of interest, just expired. Firing him now may not get Trump impeached but it will destroy any ability for him to get one vote from a Democrat and a sizable number of Republicans for anything he wants for the remainder of his term.
Oh, and Trump can be indicted on the day he leaves office -- so the fact that he can't be indicted while President is no protection -- it's only a deferral. Theoretically the proceedings and votes of a Grand Jury are secret. In truth given how badly so-called "secret" things leak these days I expect that "secrecy" to last all about 30 seconds.
Mueller thinks he has something worthy of presentment to the Grand Jury or he wouldn't do this. I have no idea what it is, but whatever it is he's reasonably certain he can get at least one indictment out of it -- and probably more than one. Remember that a Grand Jury only hears one side of the case -- the prosecution's side. There is no right to be heard or defend yourself before a Grand Jury; that comes later after you get indicted.
This is going to get ugly.
There has been a lot of micro focus on Internet advertising -- the prevalence of "bots" (robotic "readers" that click ads), second, third, fourth and sixth accounts that belong to cats, dogs and mice, measurement problems (such as counting a video "viewed" if 50% of the pixels could have been seen for 2 seconds) and more.
But nobody has, as far as I know, talked about the real, underlying issue behind all of the above and more: Incentives, the mismatch thereof, and thus the outrageous enabling of worthless advertising which the consumer directly pays to have sent to them by the venues in question.
Think about the advertising world ex-Internet. A television station has to air content people want to watch and that either informs or entertains. It also generally has to differentiate between the two: News .vs. entertainment. The running of commercials (advertising) is something that is distinct from either of the other two types of programming and is pretty easy for the consumer to differentiate. The more entertaining or informing the ordinary content is the more people watch it and are engaged with a positive view toward said station and thus the more-receptive they are to advertising, in addition to the number of viewers growing. In other words the incentives are aligned between the station owner and the advertiser.
This is exactly backward in the Internet space.
The Internet is consumed with "eyeballs", metrics such as daily active users and monthly active users. None of these properties care if you are either entertained or informed, and in fact they actively seek to blur the boundary between entertainment, opinion and fact, never mind intentionally dishonest or outrageous content. Why? Because doing so drives daily active users.
Facebook, for example, began with being a place where the primary content was you sharing pictures of your cute pussy (cat, you dirty-minded fool.) But it didn't stay that way for long, because your actual circle of friends is not that large. So today a huge percentage of "posts" are from either 'affiliated sites' that make it easy to put their "stuff" on Facebook with the intent to drive traffic to them where they can obtain an advertising flow (e.g. Godin World, Viral threads, etc -- the myriad "look at this test result" posts) or are pure clickbait themselves (e.g. "onlyinyourstate", "upworthy", etc.)
A quick look through a typical feed page shows that the majority of items displayed are in one of these two categories. Facebook could stop them instantly since identifying them as "clickbait" or "affiliated crap" (e.g. let me see your profile so I can spam you -- oh, and tell you what your name means in Springlashdeshi) is so trivial even a robot could do it.
If Facebook did that their "engagement" would fall by an enormous amount.
The problem is that not doing it makes Facebook worse than the National Enquirer in terms of being a "real place to go to either be entertained or informed."
Now remember something important: Facebook sells ads based on their claimed "active user" counts and "engagement." Not only does it not matter that "what you name means in Swahili" is posted on your timeline through some "affiliated site", a meaningless and inane sop to get you to give away personal data on yourself and everyone who has you listed as a friend without telling you in advance or compensating anyone for same Facebook the company has every incentive to cooperate with these firms screwing you by taking and selling that data because it drives up their "active user" and "engagement" numbers. In other words "clickbait" is just fine with Facebook (despite what they say in public) so long as people keep clicking instead of forming a posse to stake out Zuckerpig's residence in Silicon Valley while demanding his head on a pike and the more surveillance Facebook can conduct on you and sell without provoking said posse to form the better -- for them.
Further, Facebook does not care how outrageous the claims are that are made through those sites even though they're displayed on their pages.
Because they're not the ones making the claims.
Consider email spam. We all hate it. But how much would your ISP "hate it" if they billed you to transport it, that is, if they made money either directly or indirectly because you got spammed? They'd love it! Oh they might say otherwise, but there's utterly no reason in that situation for them to do anything to block it and in fact they'd probably act in ways to make it hard for you to block it.
Do you need to ask again why Google and Apple won't permit direct access to their "hosts" files by user programs for both IOS and Android which can, by doing so, implement an easy-to-use advertising blacklist? The all claim it's for 'security reasons' but it would be trivial to force all such redirects to 127.0.0.1 which is intrinsically safe. They know this and thus their "it's for security reasons" claim is fraudulent. Further, why do not the cell companies implement an easy-to-use option switch on your account to elect DNS servers that blackball known advertising domains? I could have, and were I still running an ISP would have, done this years ago as it's literally a few hours worth of time to code it up and test it. The effect of implementing such, in addition to eliminating the ads, is that your user-perceived performance improves markedly because page and app data load times go way down.
The answer in both cases is the same: The phone OS makers and cell carriers only care about volume since that's how they get paid and the cost is not on them -- it's on you.
Further, none of these firms care if bots, "cats", "dogs" and similar click ads and use their systems. All of the above drive up their "engagement" numbers, their "daily active users" and traffic levels which the folks transporting the data to you bill you for. They only care if they are caught intentionally ignoring or actively promoting such garbage because then advertisers could sue them.
The incentives for AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile, Google, Apple, Facebook, SNAP and similar, in other words, are exactly opposed to an advertiser's incentives. In fact as long as you tolerate the additional cost in both time and money to transmit all that spam to your screen they love it since it drives up the numbers they use to sell ads and, in the case of the transport firms, the direct revenue from you as a customer!
An advertiser only gets a good deal in buying advertising if he or she earns more in profit than the ad costs to run. Not revenue folks, profit. Every incentive the carriers, OS sellers and social media firms have is directly dilutive if not actively opposed to the interests of said advertisers!
Eventually advertisers are going to figure this out. P&G already has to some small extent; they cut $100 million off their digital ad spend last quarter and saw no decrease in revenue growth. While $100 million isn't a large percentage of the total advertising budget for a company like P&G it underlines the point; that money was literally a cash bonfire handed to the people running the ads as it bought them exactly zero increase in business.
If and when the stock market figures this out Facebook is a literal ghost. So is SNAP. So are all the other properties that have these lofty valuations. Oh sure, sites like The Market Ticker, which actually offer up something that I'd like to think of as insightful editorial content continue to have some value in the advertising space but the majority of that which is not a photo of your dog or plate of food on Facebook or SNAP is in fact clickbait or some scheme to get your information and in turn that means their so-called "MAUs" and "DAUs", along with their "engagement" figures are worthless. Google, while having a real property in Adsense probably finds itself with half or three-quarters of the business it generates today while internet properties like Facebook and SNAP have perhaps has 10% of today's useful ad load and a literal zero stock price.
Further, if the regulators were to get their **** together and forbid carriers from billing you for data used to carry advertising, forcing it to be tagged and back-billed to the advertiser, you'd instantly see options show up to elect to block that data from all the cell carriers in an afternoon.
Were just one of them to do that the "value" of said mobile advertising would fall to an immediate zero and they'd gain all the customers.
"Uncarrier" eh? Uh, no.
Legere could do this in a day with T-Mobile, for example, if he decided to.
You'd never put up with being billed by the minute for television time that included ads, as that would effectively force you to pay for the delivery of advertising into your living room. Why do you tolerate cell companies billing you for the data used to carry said advertising to your phone? Remember that this is essentially all of Facebook's ad revenue today. This is an outrageous and fraudulent practice as it carries negative value to you and yet the industry has managed to evade both consumer protection laws and the consumer's torches and pitchforks thus far.
For how much longer will that evasion continue to work?
The content on this site is provided without any warranty, express or implied. All opinions expressed on this site are those of the author and may contain errors or omissions.
NO MATERIAL HERE CONSTITUTES "INVESTMENT ADVICE" NOR IS IT A RECOMMENDATION TO BUY OR SELL ANY FINANCIAL INSTRUMENT, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO STOCKS, OPTIONS, BONDS OR FUTURES.
The author may have a position in any company or security mentioned herein. Actions you undertake as a consequence of any analysis, opinion or advertisement on this site are your sole responsibility. Market charts, when present, used with permission of TD Ameritrade/ThinkOrSwim Inc. Neither TD Ameritrade or ThinkOrSwim have reviewed, approved or disapproved any content herein. The Market Ticker content may be sent unmodified to lawmakers via print or electronic means or excerpted online for non-commercial purposes provided full attribution is given and the original article source is linked to. Please contact Karl Denninger for reprint permission in other media, to republish full articles, or for any commercial use (which includes any site where advertising is displayed.)
Submissions or tips on matters of economic or political interest may be sent "over the transom" to The Editor at any time. To be considered for publication your submission must include full and correct contact information and be related to an economic or political matter of the day. All submissions become the property of The Market Ticker.
Market charts, when present, used with permission of TD Ameritrade/ThinkOrSwim Inc. Neither TD Ameritrade or ThinkOrSwim have reviewed, approved or disapproved any content herein.
The Market Ticker content may be sent unmodified to lawmakers via print or electronic means or excerpted online for non-commercial purposes provided full attribution is given and the original article source is linked to. Please contact Karl Denninger for reprint permission in other media, to republish full articles, or for any commercial use (which includes any site where advertising is displayed.)
Submissions or tips on matters of economic or political interest may be sent "over the transom" to The Editor at any time. To be considered for publication your submission must include full and correct contact information and be related to an economic or political matter of the day. All submissions become the property of The Market Ticker.