And of course they want a credit card on file for "age verification" ๐ or they won't let you chat with the bots
this post was submitted on 17 May 2024
210 points (100.0% liked)
AssholeDesign
8342 readers
100 users here now
This is a community for designs specifically crafted to make the experience worse for the user. This can be due to greed, apathy, laziness or just downright scumbaggery.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
synthespian noun, trademark in US
a computer-generated three-dimensional character, either in a wholly animated film or in one that is a mixture of live action and computer animation.
Hey, Calculon's back!
I actually like that word. Feels like something out of a dystopian sci-fi novel.
The Adventures of Flox Spanner 2209, by Donovan Cove
Chapter 1: The Synthespian Uprising
Or like it's how Poe from Altered Carbon would describe himself.
I'd like it more if it weren't a trademark.
Well the best part about trademark law is that if you're too good and you become the 'generic' term then you lose protection.
I don't believe you, I'll Google it myself.
Let us all recount our favourite synthespians from various companies then
Yeah no, it's all right, you guys - it's a synthespian.
And that's not just this one - thats 90% of all available dating-services
That's one of the big things that came out of the Ashley Madison hack, it wasn't just user profiles, it was site data too. Most of the womens profiles were fake.
There was just a (Wired?) Article about being an only fans contract chatter, not a bot, but a low paid worker.
Here it is https://www.wired.com/story/i-went-undercover-secret-onlyfans-chatter-wasnt-pretty/
Claiming that the whole thing is an "entertainment service", but forgetting to tell the customers/men. This ought to be illegal
I always click on annoying ads just to fuck with their ad budget, this appeared after clicking on a fake download button.
Just curious, how does this affect companies' ad budget if you disinterestedly click on ads?
Because someone paid for that click, and will spend more money because of "how many clicks" they got.
Basically, clicking on ads you aren't interested in wastes someone's money (and makes money for the site, depending on how the ads are bought/placed).
That assumes they are paying perclick, and you are exchanging your time for their cost. If it makes you happy because it pays for the site, go for it, but you are probably costing the ad buyers a tiny fraction of a penny per click.
I don't disagree. If I chose to do that, I'd automate it, but there's no guarantee that they are using a paid-per-click ad.
Pay per view ads are only for walled gardens with a monopoly.
Nobody clicks on ads = the site owner makes lots of money from ads, but advertisers spend a lot of money for low conversions.
No advertiser would ever choose a pay per view model when there's the possibility of pay per click
For example when I was a reddit users I ran a campaign on Reddit and nobody was clicking the link. After all, you're doomscrolling, why would you click on an ad? Maybe accidentally, or if it has a deceiving or click bait title. Instead on a normal website, once you're done with the news or got the info you were searching for, you're more likely to click somewhere. It's the reason most Facebook ads are downright scams, because otherwise nobody would click them and also they filter only the gullible people thinking that yes, that ~~Alibaba resell~~ tech masterpiece for $99 discounted from $390 is a very good deal.
In theory, whomever is running the ad pays per click or w/e. In practice, it does nothing but expose your own system to potential risk.
Ads on website pay on a "pay for each click" basis. So for each click I waste 5 cents of their budget and hopefully end the campaign a bit earlier than expected
I thought conversions matter most in the cost of ads