Admins: About the Google ads:

[Redstone]

They're unobtrusive, and don't slow anything down. And I'm REAL sensitive to obtrusive advertising.

Therefore, if you can make a few bucks from them, you'll not get any complaints from me.

Redstone

[BrklynLiberal]

1. They are not really bothering be either.

:thumbsup:

(Don't tell Google, but I barely notice them.)

[Gormy Cuss]

3. I noticed the Pink Floyd attack!

I don't encounter so many Pink Floyd references in my normal surfing. Someone had a thread about them and Google latched on to it for a bit.

I'm sure there will be a few kinks to work out but I can't fault the admins for trying. If it generates enough revenue it's safer for them than relying just on our quarterly bake sales.

[NC_Nurse]

2. I second that

or third it....or whatever....:)

[brokensymmetry]

4. I agree.

Who knows, maybe the ads will even offer
some information, service, or a product that
will be worthwhile.

[sweetheart]

5. Don't agree at all

You've put corporate media on a political economy discussion, and if
you need the bills paid, please look to systems that offer to pay your
writers and contributors for the fucking years invested dammit.... frustrated
emphasis!

You could adopt a scheme that would allow users to throw a few credits writer's way,
its' been done.... you're choosing not to...

Schemes are being picked that pollute the pages with corporate images, with no
choice on the contributors, members behalf but to eat it( not progressive in the least)
or to sign off.... or (an idea) to pay for no adverts, please.

My politics arn't owned... not by google either. The kids are smart, the search engine
is already corrupt, and no need to put adverts on what was a clean page until now.

I object. Redstone, your behaviour is short of brownnosing, selling off your neighbor's
ground and rights 'cuz, hey, you don't mind a 40 foot billboard in your back yard, and
we should celibrate that progressive instinct. ?

[Nexus7]

7. Huh?

It isn't his/her backyard, and it isn't yours either. It's a web forum, and they want to put Google text ads. Just like a million other web sites. There's nothing wrong in being mainstream.

[sweetheart]

8. not the progressive caucus

This is a direct subversion to the progressive caucus.

It is political veiled in a thousand excuses.

[fla nocount]

10. I've got your back kid...we're not here to support global corporations

and nothing is more globally corporate than Googles China content censoring acquisence. 35-40 years ago this would have been called "selling out", "sucking butt" or maybe "bending over without a kiss". I find this as disappointing as the middle of the road, straddling the fence or a request for a donation from the DNC to re-elect Lieberman in his primary race against a far better man.

[Redstone]

15. Well, that's your opinion. I still don't mind the ads. I don't expect

anyone to celebrate anything.

Redstone

[Suich]

6. Uh, Redstone?

I don't mind them either!

:hi:

[sendero]

9. Not discounting my fame..

... at getting bothered by lots of things, the ads are a reasonable solution, providing that they produce revenue that wouldn't be described as a pittance :)

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

11. Me Either. I Hope They Make A Ton Off Of Them.

I'd love to see them finally rewarded for all the amazing things they've done with this site. I'm all for it and hope it works out for them.

[Peace Patriot]

12. I don't mind Google ads on the bottom, top or sides, but not down in the

middle of the scrolling threads. First of all, it's exploitation of the content, which is purely political, public interest content. I get all my news here at DU partly BECAUSE it is not visually interrupted with ads I don't want to look at. Also, it's hard enough to follow the threads of all the stories and comments I'm interested in--the ads down through the middle, interrupting news/comment, are VERY distracting.

I sympathize with the above comment--and others' sentiments--about the corporatization of everything, and the "selling" of everything, including the hard work of DU bloggers and activists--in investigating and analyzing the news, providing opinion, and vetting corporate news monopoly lies and distortions--and frankly I think DU's owners should choose between asking for donations from all of us who are giving our volunteer time in various ways to contribute to this valuable news and opinion resource, and accepting corporate ads--and not mix the two up. It is not fair to pay Google and not the regular contributors to this site, and then ask US for money. We--all of us--provide the content that makes this site valuable as commercial property. I thought my donation to DU was going to a non-profit. These ads tell me that I was wrong. And the timing of the arrival of these ads, after a big donation drive, indicates confusion of purpose, and a certain muddiness that leaves me ill at ease.

I'd say, choose one mode or the other--Google supported, or contributor supported--and if you choose Google supported (likely more lucrative), place the ads less obtrusively (not in the middle news scroll), and keep the site clean and useful for political news and interaction. It will CEASE to BE a property that you can sell to Google, if you have big defections because of the ads.

DU is not a democracy. That has been made quite clear all along the way. It is an owned site, controlled by the owners. We are sometimes asked our opinions of the rules, but we do not make the rules. I understand this. It's the decision of the owners of this site what they need to do to support it. As corporations go, Google is a pretty good one. They resisted Bush junta data-mining, and stood alone in doing so. Their democratic initial stock offering was a major advance for more equality in the financial world. And, as far as I know, they treat their employees well, and they most certainly provide useful services. The content of the ads should be vetted so that the site is not supporting products that harm people or the environment or our democracy. I won't leave DU because of the ads--at least not so far anyway--but it is already less useful to me because of the interference of the ads in my reviewing threads and choosing topics to comment on, and I'm not particularly happy about the commercialization, although I know that a lot of good sites support themselves with ads.

[crikkett]

13. i preferred the stickies, myself

They kept me cheerful. I really enjoyed them and was saving my pennies to buy a few.
I wonder how much $ the google ads generate vs. the stickies?

[fla nocount]

14. Why is this on the second page? kick n/t

[SidDithers]

16. I agree...

my only request would be that they open in a new window, so I don't leave DU if I want to check something out.

Sid