Julian Sanchez | October 12, 2006
Ampersand of Alas, a
Blog has been catching serious flak
from his large feminist audience for
cutting a deal with pr0n websites to boost their Google
rankings via links from his own highly-linked site.
Brandon Berg at Catallarchy explains why, even if you
think pornography is teh evil!!!, the rage is misplaced:
Search-engine optimization is a negative-sum game. By increasing his search engine rankings, one pornographer can take business away from other pornographers, but total revenues for the pornography industry as a whole remain the same. The net effect on the pornography industry is negative--their costs go up due to rent-seeking, but their revenues stay the same--so even though Ampersand is helping some pornographers, that benefit is more than offset by the harm he's doing to others. In effect, he's taking money out of the pockets of pornographers and using it to publish feminist propaganda!
Help Reason celebrate its next 40 years. Donate Now!
Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.
Of course, if many other offices have the same filter mine provides, this is likely to eliminate a lot of his traffic because the filter reads his political site as a porn site and blocks it.
This argument is extremely unconvincing. If one regards pornography as evil, one has a moral duty not to cooperate in evil, regardless of the net effect on the evil industry.
Kabala,
Since when there some universal moral rule that says that if one
thinks something is immoral, one cannot "cooperate" with said thing
in any way, even if said "cooperation" results in hurting said
thing?
You're a dumb bastard...really. Either that, or a really weak
comment troll.
Alas, a Blog? No. Wrong. It should be Alas,
Blogylon.
Jeez, to have to think of everything?
Well, this a new one. Never been to Alas, a Blog before. After glancing over their content and their voluminous 'Comments Moderation' manifesto I don't think I'll waste my time again.
So, have the non-free-market types given up on their contention
that advertising is evil because it artificially stimulates demand
for products? If it can be proved that advertising for a product or
for a category of products only affects market share, not the
absolute amounts of the stuff or service sold, then &
has a prima facie case for what he's doing. I expect he's wrong
about the numbers, though.
Kevin
Kevin,
I, for one, had no idea that lude and explicit pictures of sexual
practices existed in this series of tubes we call 'The Interweb',
until I stumbled upon "Alas, A Blog". Since then, I've been forking
over every extra dollar I have to see said sexual pictures &
videos.
If Brandon Berg is correct, then banning advertising would help
the economy by ridding business of the need for this mutually
destructive practice?
While I would never play the rhetorical game of calling
advertising's effect "evil" or "artificial", I have a hard time
believing advertising's effect on overall demand is really absolute
zero.
If Brandon Berg is correct, then banning advertising would help
the economy by ridding business of the need for this mutually
destructive practice?
While I would never play the rhetorical game of calling
advertising's effect "evil" or "artificial", I have a hard time
believing advertising's effect on overall demand is really absolute
zero.
He's not saying that advertising is a zero sum game. He's saying that boosting a site's position on a google search is a zero sum game, as other sites are then moved down.
Karen,
No, I don't want it. In Alas, Babylon, the author
destroyed Tampa with a three-megaton blast. Sorry, but I don't like
that image. At all.
You know, I can't really come up with a truly clever blog name that
isn't in use. At least, not right now.
Bourboneutics?
"banning advertising would help the economy by ridding business
of the need for this mutually destructive practice?"
If that were true, then tobacco companies would have posted record
profits in the years after they stopped most kinds of advertising.
Oh, wait ...
I never actually finished Alas, Babylon. Had I known that they destroyed Tampa, I never would have made such a tasteless suggestion.
Karen,
Never to forgive, never to forget. On the other hand, that nice
Verne boy launched a lunar expedition from here.
Hey, how about Vomitorium? Everyone will think it has
something to do with vomiting, when, of course, it actually means
an arched exit from a theater. If I had a blog, I'd like the name
to have a double or seemingly double meaning.
The problem with this hypothesis is that, by offering a higher quality or wider variety of porn, sellers can increase their overall market size. Of course, since feminist dogma considers all porn to be solely for degradation of women and thus wholy interchangable, they may fall for this expaination. Not that I would know anything about the demand in this market.
In complete seriousness, I think you have something with Vomitorium, especially for a political blog.
Well, I'm not blogging at this time, so you can have it. The
domain looks to be taken, but you don't have to have it to
start a blog by that name. It would be cool to have a blog with
lots of Roman imagery, though.
Oh, here's a similar word: Logorrhea. Sounds nasty with the "rhea"
ending, but it actually means "pathologically incoherent,
repetitious speech", which is spot-on for a blog. I haven't looked,
but I bet that one's long gone. It's like schadenfreude or
crapulent--all the good words are taken :(
What Dave said: Advertising and search-engine-spider spoofing are totally different animals.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245