Ad Banners On Government Sites? 25
An Anonymous Coward asks: "Following in the as-of-yet legally uncontested footsteps of the City of Honolulu, it looks as if Fairfax County, Virginia might be adding ad banners to its official government site, according to this article on the Washington Post's website. In addition to first amendment concerns, current ad banners are designed to imitate GUI elements and could confuse a lot of citizens - what is Slashdot's take on the whole 'govads' concept?" While I understand that every city government appreciates an extra source of revenue, there are appropriate places for it, and inappropriate places. I feel a City Government's main Web site should be a banner-ad free zone. How do you feel?
Slippery Slope (Score:2)
Sure, an ad for child porn would not be allowed on that site, and an ad for a local hotel would be, right?
But what about an ad for pictures of children in "adorable poses"? Or an ad for a brothel?
Things may be "black or white" at first, but as time passes, and more and more ads push the boundary, it will be only a matter of time before they find themselves facing court battles on what is permitted and what is not. in the meantime, right?
Now, what I'm waiting for, is for most of the ads to be blocked in public libraries, city hall, etc. because of mandated filters... they might never see the ads that were going to cause them problems!
What timing (Score:2)
advertising limits? (Score:2)
On the other hand, do you want a symbol of our national pride looking like a NASCAR race car?
It's a tough issue. Ultimately, it boils down to one thing: The government needs the revenue from the ads, but it can get the funds from taxes instead. If (and only if) citizens find the advertising less palatable than paying taxes, then it shouldn't be there.
City Bus (Score:2)
Re:advertising limits? (Score:1)
Space Ads [spacetransportation.org]
Well sorta' anyhow.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:City Bus (Score:2)
Private organizations are pretty good at listing decent restaurants. Please leave it to them rather than to something I am forced to fund.
Re:advertising limits? (Score:2)
They already do. (Score:2)
In Canada, CBC TV has been running commercials, just like any other network, for many years. CBC Radio, on the other hand, advertises nothing except their own shows. The CBC is still our "public" broadcaster, and still gets public money, but there's been a lot of debate about its role in the last few years -- like how to reduce its dependency on public money without it devolving into constant reruns of The Simpsons and America's Funniest Shootings.
--
Re:City Bus (Score:2)
Checked out Honolulu's site... (Score:1)
There was an ad for leasing a beamer... from BMW of Honolulu. An ad for autoinsurance... from AIG Hawaii. An ad for Nissan vehicles... from a Honolulu Nissan Dealer. Etc.
At least the ads are Honolulu or Hawaii-centric, and they are at least trying to keep things within the community.
I mean, if there were ads for ComGas or Accenture or some foreign brewery, I could see more justification for complaint. At least the ads are for things in the community.
-----
Perhaps we can discuss stuff that really matters (Score:1)
However, explore the links on the main site, and you will discover gem [fairfax.va.us]. This kind of monitoring is the truly scary thing here. As technology plays a greater role in our society, the ways our government can check up on us become ever larger and more threatening.
1984? It could never happen...
Re:advertising limits? (Score:1)
You're both wrong! (Score:2)
See NASA's external tank reference page [nasa.gov].
Re:City Bus (Score:2)
I don't know about anywhere else, but in Toronto, Canada, the only limit on what can be posted on a transit vehicle is the same advertising standards laws which apply to newspapers, TV, etc. In fact, it is the TTC's fiscal responsibility to accept any form of revenue which is not illegal. In other words, if you can put it on a non-TTC controlled billboard, the TTC has to sell you space if you want it, and are willing to pay for it. This leads to seeing ads for beer, birth control pills, and condoms.
No county needs the money LESS than Fairfax, VA (Score:1)
About two months ago I was munching a sandwhich at a Subway in Fairfax and idly staring out the window. After a few minutes I realized that I was looking at two Magnum P.I. Ferraris, one red, one blue, behind an AMG Mercedes. Parked on the street.
And it took 5 minutes for that to seem weird to me, because it does take a while to understand that just because something has become routine to you it hasn't stopped being weird.
But maybe Fairfax needs the dough to enforce the new immigrant-friendly laws they're whipping up to make it a crime to sleep in your own living room [washingtonpost.com].
Re:Perhaps we can discuss stuff that really matter (Score:1)
Even more importantly, tell the shop clerk that gets robbed that they can't catch a robber because they didn't have surveillance. True, the government needs to stay out of our personal lives, however, at the same time, when in public, what's the difference between a cop seeing you run a red light from his car, or from a chair at HQ on a monitor? Nothing, except next time, people may behave themselves more.
I for one would rather have that implemented them let someone get away with running a red light...and accidently killing someone.
Re:City Bus (Score:1)
They can have as many banner ads as they want... (Score:2)
Grinchin' (Score:1)
I might not even notice the banner ads, since I'm pretty much conditioned to not see them, but the postmark thing really threw me.
--
Ads? Great! (Score:1)
Re:City Bus (Score:2)
That's the function of a Chamber of Commerce, which isn't actually part of the city government, it's an organization of local businesses.
Re:Checked out Honolulu's site... (Score:1)
Yes that's what I was trying to get at. The ads are for community things. Not big national products. You can't advertise for child porn on the side of a bus. You can advertise your resturant on the town website. Especially if the town has no Chamber of Commerce or Kiwanii's or Rotarians or Illumanati etc.
Now I'm going to draw fire for suggesting it's the governments job to fill in the gaps when there's no townwide shadow government conspiracy group like the Freemasons or Moonies etc.
Re:Grinchin' (Score:2)
Re:They already do. (Score:2)
Oh yeah, I realize that. I listen to a lot more NPR than I watch PBS, but same deal -- before & after each show they'll have a blurb about "funding is provided by Allaire, enabling blah blah blah" type stuff.
Apparently this report was saying that such advertisments may begin to go further now, with more mainstream-esque ads every five minutes just like or normal for-profit commercial broadcasters. That, and it suggested that the BBC has not run any ads to date (I can't confirm that part, but I understand that people have to pay to subscribe, something like cable TV here in the US), but may soon begin to. (The latter point was really the central point of the report).
I'm of at least two minds about it all. On one hand, it's nice to have a broadcast organization, and particularly a news organization, that is as independent as possible, and I know that's a fragile thing to have. IIRC, NPR caught some flack a year or two ago for it's mild coverage of corruption & fraud at Archer Daniels Midland company, because ADM was a huge supporter of NPR news. A lot of the supporters, at least for the local station (WBUR Boston), are of the new media / new economy variety (Allaire, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, et al), and it makes me wonder how critically they can cover those that are paying their bills. (In the same way that ABC has suppressed negative reports about Disney now.). On the other hand, people don't want their tax dollars paying for this, and money from pledge drives never seems to be enough, so what can they do? Personally, I'm all for 100% public (aka government) funding, but I realize I'm probably of the minority opinion on that one...