Banning ad revenue

[Zynerji]

F1 didn’t kick Mazepin out… but what have your “ohh woke” rants got to do with ads?

Removing ads for products/companies that you deem "bad" is Woke. The problem is that the subjective nature of that angle of attack is obvious, and based upon emotion and not fact. I mean CrowdStrike is currently under investigation in the US for spying on our previous President, but still displayed on the Mercedes. That probably shouldn't be, but it is, and not really my place to complain about it.

Please keep any semblance of this notion out of professional sports. Period.

First off, dropping Mazapin and his dads company was the decision of the HAAS team, a private company who has every right to decide who to do business with and more important who not. Not only would it reflect bad on other partners in the team (because of the active link to Putin), payment would be in doubt (as we've seen now, Nikita's assets are frozen for instance). Mazarin wasn't dropped because he's Russian, he was dropped because his money wasn't good anymore. Other Russian drivers are still welcome.

Second, Crowdstrike isn't under investigation. The former US president tried to link it towards some conspiracy believing the company is Ukrainian, which it's not.

No driver stood up for Nikita, so the entire thing was nothing but a PR stunt by millionaires with Twitter pressure.

And if you think Crowdstrike isn't part of the current Michael Sussmann indictment, you aren't really following along.

I'm done on this thread. F1 is a self balancing system with advertising and racing. Please leave it alone.

[proteus]

Advertising, just like tobacco smoke or vehicle emissions, one could claim is harmful to the consumer. Spam likely has deleterious effects upon cognitive health, thus the FIA might consider eliminating ads on the cars and on the tracks.

A side benefit would be an improvement to the aesthetics of the cars. The spectator would be able to view the car as a car, rather than a billboard. This would improved the spectator's experience, as they get to observe sculpture without distraction.

If museums are facing funding shortfalls, do they place stickers on the fine marble and bronze of their collection? Since the FIA is in the business of styling cars while making political statements, perhaps this is something they could consider.

https://i.pinimg.com/736x/ab/08/4a/ab08 ... af8efe.jpg
https://livedoor.blogimg.jp/markzu-phot ... 25b9f5.jpg
https://i.redd.it/eh97sgvls7lz.png
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/2d/38/d3 ... 1507cd.jpg
https://i.redd.it/d9i8v1o8ud151.jpg
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-JMAcN3sAEIw/V ... 7-F1_7.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/tFdgaIk.jpeg

I dont see any peoblem with stickers on cars. But i hate modern way of advertising on the internet which became hostile to say the least. For example i use FB just to write few messages to my friends and family, i have blocked majority of people because i dont care about what have they eaten or where have they been. So my wall is pretty empty, but FB thought they are clever and smeared their adds all over it. So i took my time and sat down for an hour and reported every single ad i got, refreshing and doing it again and finally blocking the advertiser. After that i had a whole month of peace and whenever they try to do it again, i simply report them. In case of Youtube, i have simply stopped watching videos because they became unberable.....TV which i pay for is also horribly filled with ads, even though it is not free. And if i draw the line, i can say that all of this bullying with ads, makes me hate the product as well. So stickers on cars is the smallest problem to me.

It's quite simple. They offer their platform for "free" and you had agreed to their terms of use when you signed up, so no point in complaining. I think Youtube has a paid option if you want to be advertisment free though.

With this kind of thinking we will be paying for air in 10 years or so. Nobody said there cant be some ads. But not this kind of spam which is fueled simply by greed.

[vorticism]

Right., it's essentially saying give up your cognitive agency in exchange for a product or service.

[dialtone]

Right., it's essentially saying give up your cognitive agency in exchange for a product or service.

Providing a service costs money, if you want to use it for free, you will need to see ads. If you prefer not to see ads, then pay since nobody else is paying for you. Do you think it's a coincidence that almost everything out there includes advertising when they have a free option? cognitive agency you can keep even with ads, especially with banner ads on internet.

[Jolle]

Removing ads for products/companies that you deem "bad" is Woke. The problem is that the subjective nature of that angle of attack is obvious, and based upon emotion and not fact. I mean CrowdStrike is currently under investigation in the US for spying on our previous President, but still displayed on the Mercedes. That probably shouldn't be, but it is, and not really my place to complain about it.

Please keep any semblance of this notion out of professional sports. Period.

First off, dropping Mazapin and his dads company was the decision of the HAAS team, a private company who has every right to decide who to do business with and more important who not. Not only would it reflect bad on other partners in the team (because of the active link to Putin), payment would be in doubt (as we've seen now, Nikita's assets are frozen for instance). Mazarin wasn't dropped because he's Russian, he was dropped because his money wasn't good anymore. Other Russian drivers are still welcome.

Second, Crowdstrike isn't under investigation. The former US president tried to link it towards some conspiracy believing the company is Ukrainian, which it's not.

No driver stood up for Nikita, so the entire thing was nothing but a PR stunt by millionaires with Twitter pressure.

And if you think Crowdstrike isn't part of the current Michael Sussmann indictment, you aren't really following along.

I'm done on this thread. F1 is a self balancing system with advertising and racing. Please leave it alone.

I’m going to nick this one for an upcoming F1 stand up routine, stand with Nikita people! We should start a go-fund-me to buy him another seat

[vorticism]

Right., it's essentially saying give up your cognitive agency in exchange for a product or service.

Providing a service costs money, if you want to use it for free, you will need to see ads. If you prefer not to see ads, then pay since nobody else is paying for you. Do you think it's a coincidence that almost everything out there includes advertising when they have a free option? cognitive agency you can keep even with ads, especially with banner ads on internet.

You're reading too much into what I'm saying. A choice to tolerate advertising is a choice to allow others to subject you to memes that you otherwise wouldn't tolerate on the grounds of it being unrelated, off-topic, inappropriate, annoying, etc. It's not a comment on business models nor the capital required to produce products or services, per se.

Most adults are confident in their ability to manage their own consent, so they freely consent to ad funded services, and for many ads it's not really an issue. Being forced to randomly think about roofing shingles or a box of crackers is probably not such a big deal. However the phenomenon can be weaponized as a vector for political or social engineering memes, and it would be practically invisible to most people.

[dialtone]

Right., it's essentially saying give up your cognitive agency in exchange for a product or service.

Providing a service costs money, if you want to use it for free, you will need to see ads. If you prefer not to see ads, then pay since nobody else is paying for you. Do you think it's a coincidence that almost everything out there includes advertising when they have a free option? cognitive agency you can keep even with ads, especially with banner ads on internet.

You're reading too much into what I'm saying. A choice to tolerate advertising is a choice to allow others to subject you to memes that you otherwise wouldn't tolerate on the grounds of it being unrelated, off-topic, inappropriate, annoying, etc. It's not a comment on business models nor the capital required to produce products or services, per se.

Most adults are confident in their ability to manage their own consent, so they freely consent to ad funded services, and for many ads it's not really an issue. Being forced to randomly think about roofing shingles or a box of crackers is probably not such a big deal. However the phenomenon can be weaponized as a vector for political or social engineering memes, and it would be practically invisible to most people.

Here's the funny part with this argument: depending on the day of the week you will read that online ads don't work anyway because there's too much click fraud, or people don't see them anyway, "do you know anyone that clicks on ads?" and so on. On the other days of the week instead advertising is an invincible force that shifts elections with Swiss precision, just put money here.

Don't get me wrong, I despise Facebook/Meta and all their products (don't use any of them), I think they should be held accountable due to the entities they allow advertising on their platform and the messages they allow from paid advertising on their platform. And more.

But I don't think advertising is as powerful as you say for political reasons. Facebook "helped" the situation because people's own circles intensify their already existing biases, even in this thread you can read extreme opinions that are basically unmovable, no matter what level of reasoning you are exposed to, any single news that helps your confirmation bias will be accepted and everything else rejected. This in turn is also helped by the perceived dishonesty or immorality of the party you are having a conversation with, the ethical problem has been raised in this thread too. None of this helps, literally none.

You of course don't need to believe me, but if you really think advertising is what is being weaponized, I think you are barking at the wrong tree, it's certainly used, but it's not the cause and removing it won't solve the problem. But this is kind of off topic from your original intent I think .

[vorticism]

Yeah, it's not perfect. But if advertising is to some degree effective, this is an admission that people are suggestible. The 'consenting adult' does not perhaps have a full appreciation of their susceptibility to suggestion.

As it relates, propaganda and advertising are one in the same. Think of the modern origins of both in the early 20th. century, with figures like Edward Bernays (Freud's nephew).

[PlatinumZealot]

Political advertisements are extremely rare.

Social engineering ads are even rarer. (An add that tricks you into divulging personal information).

Most ads are just companies selling their goods or services. They bought the space and they can choose the type of people or lifestyle portrayed in the advertisments. For example if they want to increase their market share of minorities (and many companies are trying to do this nowadays!) you will see them use minority actors. It's not because they want to encourage imigration or whatever conspiracy theory people out there have. Lol.

[dialtone]

Yeah, it's not perfect. But if advertising is to some degree effective, this is an admission that people are suggestible. The 'consenting adult' does not perhaps have a full appreciation of their susceptibility to suggestion.

As it relates, propaganda and advertising are one in the same. Think of the modern origins of both in the early 20th. century, with figures like Edward Bernays (Freud's nephew).

Of course advertising works, not as much as people think but it does, but it won't make you do something you don't want to do or don't believe in. It may nudge you a bit towards buying a product but it will not make you 180 on your beliefs or experience.

[vorticism]

Political advertisements are extremely rare.

Social engineering ads are even rarer. (An add that tricks you into divulging personal information).

Most ads are just companies selling their goods or services. They bought the space and they can choose the type of people or lifestyle portrayed in the advertisments. For example if they want to increase their market share of minorities (and many companies are trying to do this nowadays!) you will see them use minority actors. It's not because they want to encourage imigration or whatever conspiracy theory people out there have. Lol.

Advertisements carry the biases of their curators in addition to whatever the equally curated contents of the message are. As such they are an extension of politics. You freely admit that fake camaraderie with the viewer can be attained by curation of casts.

At the most base level advertising is social engineering. The engineering of a market.

Regardless, corporations are also political entities, not always purely interested in economic perfection. The post BLM advertising trends are not necessarily about trying to corner 13% of the US market, f.e. It's as much about virtue signalling and the desire to make political statements on the part of frustrated corporate cubicle drones, as it is about pushing political narratives for more powerful interests they sympathize with or are beholden to.

Yeah, it's not perfect. But if advertising is to some degree effective, this is an admission that people are suggestible. The 'consenting adult' does not perhaps have a full appreciation of their susceptibility to suggestion.

As it relates, propaganda and advertising are one in the same. Think of the modern origins of both in the early 20th. century, with figures like Edward Bernays (Freud's nephew).

Of course advertising works, not as much as people think but it does, but it won't make you do something you don't want to do or don't believe in. It may nudge you a bit towards buying a product but it will not make you 180 on your beliefs or experience.

As I said, not necessarily perfect. Suggestion is what make democracy valuable to powerful people.

[dialtone]

Political advertisements are extremely rare.

Social engineering ads are even rarer. (An add that tricks you into divulging personal information).

Most ads are just companies selling their goods or services. They bought the space and they can choose the type of people or lifestyle portrayed in the advertisments. For example if they want to increase their market share of minorities (and many companies are trying to do this nowadays!) you will see them use minority actors. It's not because they want to encourage imigration or whatever conspiracy theory people out there have. Lol.

Advertisements carry the biases of their curators in addition to whatever the contents of the message are. As such they are an extension of politics. You freely admit that fake camaraderie with the viewer can be attained by curation of casts.

At the most base level advertising is social engineering. The engineering of a market.

Yeah, it's not perfect. But if advertising is to some degree effective, this is an admission that people are suggestible. The 'consenting adult' does not perhaps have a full appreciation of their susceptibility to suggestion.

As it relates, propaganda and advertising are one in the same. Think of the modern origins of both in the early 20th. century, with figures like Edward Bernays (Freud's nephew).

Of course advertising works, not as much as people think but it does, but it won't make you do something you don't want to do or don't believe in. It may nudge you a bit towards buying a product but it will not make you 180 on your beliefs or experience.

As I said, not necessarily perfect. Suggestion is what make democracy valuable to powerful people.

Why focus on advertising then? Newspapers have tons more suggestive power than advertising because they establish a very powerful trust relationship. New York Times invented the term: "enhanced interrogation techniques" for waterboarding and only few have been calling it torture despite it being exactly that.

Even without going all the way to politics: what do we do with all the journalists reporting factually incorrect or incendiary news on F1? We ban them because they are suggesting people?

edit: e.g. Crofty and Brundle saying that Verstappen had the best racing package in Australia after 3 laps or David Coulthard saying that Lewis' comment about "putting me in a difficult position" comment was a complaint to the team for the safety car pit stop rather than the engine over-heating. Suggestive comments that many viewers will likely believe because they trust them.

[vorticism]

Why focus on advertising then?

Because the thread is about ad revenue. No comment on F1 press, I don't have much of an opinion on it. I don't think they have much to do with the paintwork on the cars nor the trackside placards, nor the FIA's financial partnerships. My original intent for the thread was just to discuss how F1 is funded and how this relates to engineering and aesthetics. Not necessarily to discuss the machinery of advertising. Interesting exchanges either way. Thank you.

[PlatinumZealot]

Advertisements carry the biases of their curators in addition to whatever the equally curated contents of the message are. As such they are an extension of politics. You freely admit that fake camaraderie with the viewer can be attained by curation of casts.

At the most base level advertising is social engineering. The engineering of a market.

Regardless, corporations are also political entities, not always purely interested in economic perfection. The post BLM advertising trends are not necessarily about trying to corner 13% of the US market, f.e. It's as much about virtue signalling and the desire to make political statements on the part of frustrated corporate cubicle drones, as it is about pushing political narratives for more powerful interests they sympathize with or are beholden to.

I don't know if you have ever been to the USA but there is little sympathy for African Americans. You are thinking too deeply. It's about making more money.

13% is not small because there is something called the multiplier effect. Culturally African Americans have a large multiplier effect, they over represent in sports, fashion and music so if you can sell more goods to them you get more sales in those goods overall in the wider population. Also the companies also get the appearance of being sympathetic to minority groups while doing so. It's all about money.

Overall there is more good being done than harm anyways as minorties get more representation. So i don't see the issue there.

Politcal agenda is always to get votes which is an even simpler task than making subliminal ads.

And by the way I don't see any such subliminal political agenda ads in Formula 1. All I see are tech company adds, beverages, e cigarettes, fashion, chemicals, business process ads etc. The tracks have a few tourism ads... Nothing "in my face" so far when I compare it to facebook or Youtube.

So going back to your main point, I don't think the advertising is F1 is harmful to the consumer.

[proteus]

Political advertisements are extremely rare.

Social engineering ads are even rarer. (An add that tricks you into divulging personal information).

Most ads are just companies selling their goods or services. They bought the space and they can choose the type of people or lifestyle portrayed in the advertisments. For example if they want to increase their market share of minorities (and many companies are trying to do this nowadays!) you will see them use minority actors. It's not because they want to encourage imigration or whatever conspiracy theory people out there have. Lol.