[yallpendantools]

The parent post I was replying to:

> banning advertising on the Internet. It's the only way. It's the primordial domino tile. You knock that one over, every other tile follows suit. It's the mother of chain reactions.

You, jason_oster, a clown:

> Ads are mostly evil. No one said that ads were inherently evil. It's bad enough that ads are mostly evil.

Also you in the same clown breath:

> sponsored segments in videos are the devil. Sponsored segments use the old non-tracking advertisement model.

I'd lol but I'm already lmao.

> Stealing heartbeats is evil.

Appeals to emotion like that, you not only have a prospect in stand-up comedy but a long and prosperous career in political communications, if not being a politician yourself. Your two skill sets complement each other rather nicely judging by the current zeitgeist.

The only way someone could steal your heartbeat (or, frankly, anything) is if they made it unavailable to you. If your heartbeat were unavailable to you for the length of time you mentioned, you'd be dead. The only thing you should worry about stealing your heartbeat is your diet (and that includes diet coke) and sedentary lifestyle. You can't blame ads on this one.

I'll grant you a good faith interpretation of your Valentine's-worthy sentimentality. Replace "heartbeats" with "time" or "attention" and you have an argument at least worth considering.

But the thing is, you can't really prevent spending these resources; they tick away regardless. You can only choose where and how to spend them to make it meaningful. Your time is there to be spent, your attention exists to be called. All I'm really advocating for is that ads be moderated so they don't detract from anything else unfairly. Ads are information too and we need information to function. And like any form of information, they only become toxic and detrimental if they purport to be any more important than they really are.

That said, it makes your example all the more ridiculous, complaining about a thirty second ad when you are about to, excuse me, watch a livestream which would eat at your set amount of time/attention/heartbeat in far greater magnitude.

> Sponsored segments use the old non-tracking advertisement model. They pay publishers practically nothing because they aren't paying for conversions, but for an estimate based on impressions and track record woo.

You also seem horribly misinformed about how sponsored segments work. Sponsorships are tracked heavily though differently. That's why they always ask you to use their sign-up/discount code or click the link in the description. It's how publishers/content creators prove to advertisers the reach of their channel.

Go watch some ads so you can make an informed opinion on them yeah? It won't kill you and I then wouldn't have to respond to gasp human-generated slop post. Pepsi had some banger ones in the 2000s.

In conclusion, this all really reminds me of my favorite poem:

> Hey, Jason Oster, quit your bullshit

> Stop pulling things out of your ass!

> You won't find gold there

> Just shit and curly pubes

Not quite Shakespeare but rolls off the tongue quite nicely, especially that last line.

[jason_oster]

Crass and futility irate. What an unusual way to engage. It wouldn’t hurt to moderate your tone.

The thing about sponsored segments is that they pay publishers much less than what they would make with microtransactions. A 1 cent tip per viewer would be 100 times more lucrative than any ad placement.

But it sounds like you want to do some more explaining.