Submission: I don’t get this at all.
"She’s talking about the “Promoted Content” ads at the bottom of an article she was reading on some site, which showed her five “cute animal” thumbnails and one about evil women in history.
She says herself, “It was so jarring. Story about cute animal la la la promoted content about cute animals tra la la and then here is the mugshot of infamous Nazi war criminal Ilse Koch juxtaposed with the image of a grinning dog with a bird on its head!
What struck me most about this was the thought that most people will look at it and not see anything particularly weird. It’s just a collection of “funny stories,” the kinds of “funny stories” with which the internet is filled. Pets, flubs on film sets, murderous women.
Which says something about how we regard violence, and how we regard women, and how we regard women who commit violent acts. That we treat them like kooky oddities is deeply rooted in misogynist dehumanization and disempowerment.
I know, I know—who cares. It’s just some randomly generated ads, and it’s such a little thing it hardly warrants comment.”
I don’t get it. First of all, she must not have an ad-blocker add-on, because I don’t see any ads myself. And aren’t those ads generated by your browsing history? As in, she got a lot of animal stories because she was previously reading animal stories, and she got the “evil women” article because she was maybe looking at woman-related or historical-woman-related content?
I don’t know; I could be wrong. I’m just saying, it seems like a real stretch to make a post objecting to the ads generated together on a given web page.”
The modern Internet is not one MM understands.
This is what I see:
(Apparently I’m obsessed with retirement and investing. Dry!)
As always it feels like the thesis of her post is wrong. She could be talking about intrusive advertising, or web beacons being some fucking scary shit or Google tracking your every move or even possibly listening to you right now but nope, she does no research and posts about her outrage at the results, not the cause.
I don’t think anyone around here will disagree that societies are shitty to women but this is one of those times when her example isn’t relevant.
The funny thing is, she even calls them “randomly generated ads,” which they aren’t. It’s called content tailoring and it is all the rage with the advertising kids.