# Offensive advertising on Saxontheweb



## Enthusiast65

Not sure whether someone mistook sax for sex, but this is the first time I've seen such a sexually suggestive ad served up here.


__
Sensitive content, not recommended for those under 18
Show Content


----------



## Benjamin Allen

I’m not too offended by that! 🤣


----------



## ZootTheSim

Yeah the ads I see are really boring in comparison. Please re-post all of your banner ads, Enthusiast.


----------



## Sacks Of Phones

This is supposed to be an all-ages forum. Smarten up, you who think it is appropriate here.


----------



## datsaxman

Well, *your* posting of it is the first time I have seen it.

No place for that here, as already said. None.


----------



## Pete Thomas

Sacks Of Phones said:


> This is supposed to be an all-ages forum.


I'm not sure where you get that from. It 's actually 18+, see the T & C:

_Unless expressly permitted by supplemental terms, our sites and services are intended for general audiences 18 years of age and older, and access or use by anyone younger is not authorized._

That said, to be honest I don't believe the age limit is what's involved here. I don't think that ad should be there and I would hope that @VSadmin will take note and respond to this now that it has been flagged.


----------



## Dr G

The 18+ is a new thing, Pete. I recall that it used to be 16, perhaps younger. Regardless, we do have a lot of highschool-aged participants, so if 18+ is the new requirement per VS, then the admin needs to weed out everyone below 18.

That aside, the website should still be inclusive for all - and by that, I mean women musicians.


----------



## Pete Thomas

Dr G said:


> The 18+ is a new thing, Pete. I recall that it used to be 16, perhaps younger. Regardless, we do have a lot of highschool-aged participants, so if 18+ is the new requirement per VS, then the admin needs to weed out everyone below 18.


I don't know whether or when it changed - if it did it would be when the VS terms came into place and I think everyone shou;d have got got notification of an opportunity for acceptance of new rules, and I'm not sure how different 16 is from 18

But as I said I don't the age thing is what is involved here or as relevant as sexism



Dr G said:


> That aside, the website should still be inclusive for all - and by that, I mean women musicians.


I totally agree, it should be inclusive within the parameters defined by the T & C.

_...transmit any unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, libelous, flaming, hateful, offensive (whether in relation to *sex*, race, religion or otherwise)..._


----------



## B Flat

If you get rid of all the under 18 year olds, what will happen to our wealth of knowledge?


----------



## 10mfan

Now I’m going to have to start advertising my mouthpieces on beaches......


----------



## B Flat

10mfan said:


> Now I'm going to have to start advertising my mouthpieces on beaches......


In skimpy ligatures?


----------



## ZootTheSim

Maybe the model in the ad plays sax? But you're right, in the interest of inclusivity, we should get some half-naked male models up on here too.


----------



## Enthusiast65

10mfan said:


> Now I'm going to have to start advertising my mouthpieces on beaches......


As long as they're beautiful INSIDE and out ;-)


----------



## nvilletele

B Flat said:


> In skimpy ligatures?


Well, obviously only single screw models.


----------



## ROARII

most ads are done based on people’s browsing behavior to create a profile. These ad vendors look at your browsing clicking behavior across multiple sites to identify ads that might be of interest to you. Veriscope does not actually control the ads. Instead they lease space to an ad provided that then insets ads. 

Because the content is served up by the same provider across multiple sites they are developing a profile of you based upon sites visited and ads clicked. My ads are for Quaker Oatmeal so I must have a very boring life.

anyway Delete your cookies on your browser and this will longer allow the ad provider to use the existing profile that they have adapted for you.


----------



## Enthusiast65

ROARII said:


> most ads are done based on people's browsing behavior to create a profile. These ad vendors look at your browsing clicking behavior across multiple sites to identify ads that might be of interest to you. Veriscope does not actually control the ads. Instead they lease space to an ad provided that then insets ads. Because the context is served up by the same provider across multiple sites they are developing a profile of you based upon sites visited and ads clicked. My ads are for Quaker Oatmeal so I must have a very boring life.
> 
> anyway Delete your cookies on your browser and this will longer allow the ad provider to use the existing profile that they have adapted for you.


Ha! Thanks a million for your kind presumption. That happens to be quite wrong. I like oatmeal too.


----------



## ROARII

Enthusiast65 said:


> Ha! Thanks a million for your kind presumption. That happens to be quite wrong. I like oatmeal too.


I think it is a bait and switch ad. They are advertising bacon but when you go to the website you get oatmeal.


----------



## Enthusiast65

Benjamin Allen said:


> I'm not too offended by that!


Don't you find it a little DAGRADIng?


----------



## Enthusiast65

10mfan said:


> Now I'm going to have to start advertising my mouthpieces on beaches......


Thinking about it Mark, a good setting for your RoBUSTa model.


----------



## JayeLID

ZootTheSim said:


> Maybe the model in the ad plays sax? But you're right, in the interest of inclusivity, we should get some half-naked male models up on here too.


If that starts happening, we'll know who to blame....


----------



## jazzbluescat

Dr G said:


> ..................
> 
> That aside, the website should still be inclusive for all - and by that, I mean women musicians.


Fwiw, I didn't know women musicians were Not inclusive on SOTW. ...haven't seen NO WOMEN ALLOWED signs anywhere.

And, considering the above, it seems a bit disturbing that the female gender issue was triggered by the OP's post, which is two entirely different issues, imho


----------



## Perio

Hey, from a woman’s perspective, I’m seriously jealous of that superb beach body . . . but not offended!


----------



## swperry1

jazzbluescat said:


> Fwiw, I didn't know women musicians were Not inclusive on SOTW. ...haven't seen NO WOMEN ALLOWED signs anywhere.
> 
> And, considering the above, it seems a bit disturbing that the female gender issue was triggered by the OP's post, which is two entirely different issues, imho


I wish we also had a dislike response button.


----------



## jazzbluescat

Perio said:


> Hey, from a woman's perspective, I'm seriously jealous of that superb beach body . . . but not offended!


Cool. The ad just seems inappropriate, is all, imho.


----------



## chilehed

Heck, I'm 60 and don't need to see that. Wish I hadn't clicked on it.


----------



## Roundmidnite

I probably sound like an idiot, but what was the ad for exactly? The content of ads sometimes is completely unrelated to what the actual "product" is.


----------



## Hassles

what, may I ask, was being advertised by the near naked, spread legged busty beach goer? Kinda' reminds me off all the adds I encounter trying to coerce me to buy motor oil, power tools or tyres for the car. I made a point eons ago if a near naked woman's body was thrust in my face in attempts to coerce me to buy something that I would simply boycott the company and its products.


----------



## Enthusiast65

Roundmidnite said:


> I probably sound like an idiot, but what was the ad for exactly? The content of ads sometimes is completely unrelated to what the actual "product" is.


No idea - I didn't click.


----------



## Pete Thomas

Roundmidnite said:


> but what was the ad for exactly?





Hassles said:


> what, may I ask, was being advertised by the near naked, spread legged busty beach goer?





Enthusiast65 said:


> No idea - I didn't click.


I don't think it's a huge secret:


----------



## Roundmidnite

Pete Thomas said:


> I don't think it's a huge secret:
> 
> View attachment 106709


So,,, people are supposed to suddenly be interested in the news as a result of that ad? I guess the marketers must think so.


----------



## turf3

There hasn't been a new idea in advertising in at least 50 years.


----------



## swperry1

Roundmidnite said:


> So,,, people are supposed to suddenly be interested in the news as a result of that ad? I guess the marketers must think so.


It all seems to be a bait and click game these days. That ad for newzgeeks is a google ad, so the bait seen is determined by your browsing footprint and probably shows up with ten different types of bait to cover all types of browsers.


----------



## swperry1

turf3 said:


> There hasn't been a new idea in advertising in at least 50 years.


Perhaps strategies haven't changed much, but if you told ad execs 50 years ago that by 2010 they'd be able to seamlessly integrate intrusive advertising content aimed directly at the individual browsing and lifestyle habits of millions of people with ease and for pennies on the dollar compared to standard print and media marketing; even they'd be skeptical&#8230;and perhaps a little afraid.


----------



## JayeLID

Roundmidnite said:


> So,,, people are supposed to suddenly be interested in the news as a result of that ad? I guess the marketers must think so.


See reply #17 on page one...I doubt highly one could even classify their content being 'news'....


----------



## Enthusiast65

swperry1 said:


> Perhaps strategies haven't changed much, but if you told ad execs 50 years ago that by 2010 they'd be able to seamlessly integrate intrusive advertising content aimed directly at the browsing and lifestyle habits of millions of people with ease and for pennies on the dollar compared to standard print and media marketing; even they'd be skeptical&#8230;and perhaps a little afraid.


Or in my case with absolutely no relationship between the advertising and my browsing habits! Feels like a huge backwards step when unscrupulous online advertising throws away the direct marketing targeting handbook and reverts to the Amex 1980s marketing 'strategy' of throw enough mud at the wall and hope a few traces stick.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## milandro

this is the same problem all over agin









Ads are ridiculous....Abrochado O Multado?


^^^^^^^^ this ^^^^^^^^




www.saxontheweb.net





@VSadmin had answered they can *be reported AND BLOCKED* ( with a bonus)



VSadmin said:


> I talked to the ad department and they can report them with the following info, please provide the following and I can escalate to try to get them blocked.
> 
> Browser
> Geo city state country
> Timezone
> IP address of the user
> Platform OS browser
> 
> As an incentive for reporting I will provide any member who gives us an accurate report of the above with a free one-year premium membership.
> 
> Jeff M


----------



## swperry1

Enthusiast65 said:


> Or in my case with absolutely no relationship between the advertising and my browsing habits! Feels like a huge backwards step when unscrupulous online advertising throws away the direct marketing targeting handbook and reverts to the Amex 1980s marketing 'strategy' of throw enough mud at the wall and hope a few traces stick.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


I'll just mention some things in a browsing history that might make a person the target of an ad with a suggestively posed woman as the clickbait so you can perhaps quel the compulsion to keep saying it's not you in some sort of misguided attempt at defending some kind of non-existent internet honor:
Sports
Music
Cars
Tools/ home improvement
Any and all social media
The simple fact you're a man (and they know that the second you log into anything that has your demographics&#8230;like a forum or your email)
The list is very long because internet advertising is incredibly intrusive. Also, schoolyard rules say the more you say it's not your fault, the more people focus on it being your fault. Just let it go man.


----------



## Enthusiast65

swperry1 said:


> Also, schoolyard rules say the more you say it's not your fault, the more people focus on it being your fault. Just let it go man.


It's not my fault 

Sports (Newsnow in particular).


----------



## Enthusiast65

milandro said:


> this is the same problem all over agin
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ads are ridiculous....Abrochado O Multado?
> 
> 
> ^^^^^^^^ this ^^^^^^^^
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.saxontheweb.net
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> @VSadmin had answered they can *be reported AND BLOCKED* ( with a bonus)


thanks very much Milandro, have provided details.


----------



## JL

Enthusiast65 said:


> Feels like a huge backwards step when unscrupulous online advertising throws away the direct marketing targeting handbook and reverts to the Amex 1980s marketing 'strategy' of throw enough mud at the wall and hope a few traces stick.


I don't see it as reverting to the 1980s at all; the marketing strategy you describe is as active and probably more active today as it ever was.


----------



## Helen

Gee, a woman in a bikini selling X. Where have I seen that before??? Let me think now.... EVERYWHERE....  The objectification of women in advertising has been around for what, 50+ years now? (And I write this now as a communications graduate with a specialty in advertising.) Men are objectified as well in ads, where are the those ads? I want to see them! 

As far as those <18 being what, influenced?, by an ad like this, have you checked out Primetime TV? Cable TV? Movies rated so that those <18 can see them? Video games? Teens under 18 can see a whole lot more than a woman in a bikini with a semi-suggestive text.

Ultimately it is up to the forum owners if they have a problem with ads like this. Personally, I am rather _meh_ about the entire thing.


----------



## milandro

Enthusiast65 said:


> It's not my fault
> 
> Sports (Newsnow in particular).


It certainly isn't

Vs sells the right to advertise to other companies and then these things happen, is not the first and won't be the last.


----------



## turf3

swperry1 said:


> Perhaps strategies haven't changed much, but if you told ad execs 50 years ago that by 2010 they'd be able to seamlessly integrate intrusive advertising content aimed directly at the individual browsing and lifestyle habits of millions of people with ease and for pennies on the dollar compared to standard print and media marketing; even they'd be skeptical&#8230;and perhaps a little afraid.


I'm sorry but those are very low level ideas. That's just about the mechanics of publishing the ads.

"There's the Internet - let's put our stuff on it!" Well, duh. That's the same thing as choosing which magazine to run your ads in, or which walls to paste your posters, etc.

The actual ideas behind advertising haven't changed in ages.

"Be the first one on your block!"
"Everyone's got one!"
"Attractive people will want to have sex with you!"
"An authority recommends it!"
"You've seen it on TV!"
"This celebrity says it's great!"

Etc.

Showing nearly naked women to advertise something goes back as far as people having things to advertise. (The idea of what's "nearly naked" has evolved, true...)

The last semi-new idea I've seen in advertising was the VW ads that made a virtue of what the Beetle didn't have. That was 65 years ago or so. After that it's just been a never-ending stream of the same stuff as I noted above. Yeah, the mechanics have changed, from print to TV to internet, but that's just plug-and-chug stuff, not innovation.


----------



## Grumps

For some reason, these ads do not appear on my screen. How do I get them?


----------



## swperry1

turf3 said:


> I'm sorry but those are very low level ideas. That's just about the mechanics of publishing the ads.
> 
> "There's the Internet - let's put our stuff on it!" Well, duh. That's the same thing as choosing which magazine to run your ads in, or which walls to paste your posters, etc.
> 
> The actual ideas behind advertising haven't changed in ages.
> 
> "Be the first one on your block!"
> "Everyone's got one!"
> "Attractive people will want to have sex with you!"
> "An authority recommends it!"
> "You've seen it on TV!"
> "This celebrity says it's great!"
> 
> Etc.
> 
> Showing nearly naked women to advertise something goes back as far as people having things to advertise. (The idea of what's "nearly naked" has evolved, true...)
> 
> The last semi-new idea I've seen in advertising was the VW ads that made a virtue of what the Beetle didn't have. That was 65 years ago or so. After that it's just been a never-ending stream of the same stuff as I noted above. Yeah, the mechanics have changed, from print to TV to internet, but that's just plug-and-chug stuff, not innovation.


That's a whole lot of words to just say you agree.


----------



## MrMarcus

Helen said:


> Ultimately it is up to the forum owners if they have a problem with ads like this. Personally, I am rather _meh_ about the entire thing.


You're breaking the hearts of many internet white knights with that attitude


----------



## milandro

of course the problem is not this or that advert,

we've had this other one one before









people objected to that (there were other ads in the past too) @VSadmin offered to do the right thing by cancelling that ad, but there will be another ad sometime down the line and it be offensive to some (and may not to others)

the very important thing is that any ad that offends people is counterproductive


----------



## swperry1

MrMarcus said:


> You're breaking the hearts of many internet white knights with that attitude


Breaking hearts? White knights? Is this the Ben Shapiro show?

If people complain the site will either do something or not and the members will either stay or go based on many factors including whether they feel the interests and concerns of members outweigh the need/ desire for targeted ad revenue people complain about. Perhaps they have no/ low standard, or perhaps spam marketers are the only types of advertisers they can attract&#8230;perhaps they just don't give a f*** what we all think&#8230;who knows ?‍♂


----------



## lostcircuits

Roundmidnite said:


> I probably sound like an idiot, but what was the ad for exactly? The content of ads sometimes is completely unrelated to what the actual "product" is.


Haha, now you are fishing


----------



## lostcircuits

turf3 said:


> I'm sorry but those are very low level ideas. That's just about the mechanics of publishing the ads.
> 
> "There's the Internet - let's put our stuff on it!" Well, duh. That's the same thing as choosing which magazine to run your ads in, or which walls to paste your posters, etc.
> 
> The actual ideas behind advertising haven't changed in ages.
> 
> "Be the first one on your block!"
> "Everyone's got one!"
> "Attractive people will want to have sex with you!"
> "An authority recommends it!"
> "You've seen it on TV!"
> "This celebrity says it's great!"
> 
> Etc.
> 
> Showing nearly naked women to advertise something goes back as far as people having things to advertise. (The idea of what's "nearly naked" has evolved, true...)
> 
> The last semi-new idea I've seen in advertising was the VW ads that made a virtue of what the Beetle didn't have. That was 65 years ago or so. After that it's just been a never-ending stream of the same stuff as I noted above. Yeah, the mechanics have changed, from print to TV to internet, but that's just plug-and-chug stuff, not innovation.


As long as I don't have to look at one of the Kardashian butts ... just sayin'


----------



## swperry1

lostcircuits said:


> As long as I don't have to look at one of the Kardashian butts ... just sayin'


I fell asleep watching TV at a hotel a couple months ago and woke up a few episodes into a Kardashian's marathon. I'd never seen it before so I watched about an episode, plus whatever I'd subconsciously absorbed while sleeping. I knew that they're all terrible examples of humans, but seeing it in action was mind blowing. They have such reach and influence and they're quite literally cancer in human form.


----------



## Sacks Of Phones

lostcircuits said:


> As long as I don't have to look at one of the Kardashian butts ... just sayin'


My screen is not wide enough........


----------



## DavisConnArtist

Maybe the ads were driven by all the talk of "Naked Ladies" on the Conn sub-forum?


----------



## Ixthusdan

I am glad I use a Brave browser.


----------



## Kenneth

DavisConnArtist said:


> Maybe the ads were driven by all the talk of "Naked Ladies" on the Conn sub-forum?


Bingo !

Kenneth


----------



## AddictedToSax

Helen said:


> Gee, a woman in a bikini selling X. Where have I seen that before??? Let me think now.... EVERYWHERE....  The objectification of women in advertising has been around for what, 50+ years now? (And I write this now as a communications graduate with a specialty in advertising.) Men are objectified as well in ads, where are the those ads? I want to see them!
> 
> As far as those <18 being what, influenced?, by an ad like this, have you checked out Primetime TV? Cable TV? Movies rated so that those <18 can see them? Video games? Teens under 18 can see a whole lot more than a woman in a bikini with a semi-suggestive text.
> 
> Ultimately it is up to the forum owners if they have a problem with ads like this. Personally, I am rather _meh_ about the entire thing.


If I had to guess it's more the tasteless skanky spread-eagle pose that's offensive rather than the fact she's in a skimpy bikini.

For the record if I had a teenage daughter on SOTW I wouldn't want her seeing that stuff. I'd want her to think women have more to offer than their bodies.


----------



## AddictedToSax

swperry1 said:


> I fell asleep watching TV at a hotel a couple months ago and woke up a few episodes into a Kardashian's marathon. I'd never seen it before so I watched about an episode, plus whatever I'd subconsciously absorbed while sleeping. I knew that they're all terrible examples of humans, but seeing it in action was mind blowing. They have such reach and influence and they're quite literally cancer in human form.


The saddest part is they've made hundreds of millions of $$& at it. No talent, just famous for being famous.


----------



## swperry1

AddictedToSax said:


> The saddest part is they've made hundreds of millions of $$& at it. No talent, just famous for being famous.


Oh, I think as a family unit they're worth +/- $2 Billion&#8230;Kim's mid-high nine digits alone, and Mom might be worth more. They took what Paris Hilton and Nicole Ritchie did in being über famous just for being rich and cranked it to eleven.


----------



## ZootTheSim

That's surveillance capitalism for you, surreptitiously tracking interests to create virtual consumer profiles of users to which more products can be sold. Whether or not you might like this particular ad is irrelevant, since it's already generated pages of posts. Content is king, and VS will use this increased post count to sell our eyeballs to even more advertisers. 

The best way to eliminate ads that you find offensive is to ignore them.


----------



## warp x

Ixthusdan said:


> I am glad I use a Brave browser.


Same here. I never see any ads


----------



## JL

AddictedToSax said:


> The saddest part is they've made hundreds of millions of $$& at it. No talent, just famous for being famous.


True. However, what's sad about it is not that they did whatever it is they did to make all that $$$ (can't really blame them for that). The sad part is that in our celebrity culture, no-talent fame actually sells in such a big time way!


----------



## jthole

The only thing I see here is ads for hearing aids and fitness gear ... what's wrong with me or my phone!? ;-)

TBH those irritate me as well; I could live with relevant ads, but not with this nonsense.


----------



## Pete Thomas

How to complain:





__





Ad Standards






oba.adstandards.ca


----------



## dirty

Just get an ad blocker, everyone. I like uBlock Origin the most.
Chrome
Firefox

There are a number of good ones.

Seriously, these ad companies don't deserve your eyeballs. We can see around these parts how good their targeting is.

While you're at it, I'd also recommend installing the Electronic Frontier Foundation's Privacy Badger to help block the cross-site trackers that advertisers use to record your browsing history and build a profile of who they think you are. Just like they don't deserve your eyeballs, they don't deserve your browsing history, either.

It's unfortunate that privacy is not the default, but I think it's worth protecting what shreds we have left.


----------



## Grumps

dirty said:


> It's unfortunate that privacy is not the default, but I think it's worth protecting what shreds we have left.


We like to think of ourselves as consumers. But in this _brave new world_, we're the product.


----------



## dirty

Grumps said:


> We like to think of ourselves as consumers. But in this _brave new world_, we're the product.


This has become the model for many unimaginative businesses that made a useful product and didn't think about how to turn it into a company until after they'd already taken investor money.


----------



## milandro

Grumps said:


> We like to think of ourselves as consumers. But in this _brave new world_, we're the product.


Certainly true.

Companies like Amazon, Google, Tesla they all sell (and make more money than with their products ) the data from their clients.

Nest to the negligible and easily avoided ad, your behavior on this site (and every other one) is carefully recorded and traded with or without your name attached to it


----------



## jthole

milandro said:


> Nest to the negligible and easily avoided ad, your behavior on this site (and every other one) is carefully recorded and traded with or without your name attached to it


Specifically for this site I don't mind. I am interested in music, and in woodwinds, so I am fine if companies target their advertising to that (they don't need to show me ads for guitars, for instance). It's far more dangerous when it comes to things like health, or political orientation. So yes, I agree ... the profiling and selling is how companies make money, and the danger is in such companies collecting and combining many little pieces of information about you, and using that to offer (or deny) you specific services or ideas.


----------



## milandro

many years ago I was working at the Dutch Royal Library and we had a seminar on search engines being libraries the repository of information...

Several speakers explained how wonderful it was to live in a world like that.

I took the floor and said that it was obvious to me (20 years ago) that all the advantages came with many disadvantages. Not only the opportunity to build profiles but also to deny to those profiled in a certain way the chance to find information that we wanted hidden.

I was branded a paranoid conspiracy theorist... I rest my case


----------



## B Flat

Well the tracking they’re doing isn’t working here.
I’m getting bombarded with adds for things I’ve never expressed interest in or searched for in the past.


----------



## milandro

they are two different things, one is tracking what you do ( and not only here) the other one thing is what you like.

My wife was shocked once she had been looking up something at work and then on her telephone or computer she ket on having relevant to that search hits.

Anyway, it is what it is. Ads here will occasionally go into offensive territory, do report it as Vsadmin has indicated and it will be dealt with

".....
*I talked to the ad department and they can report them with the following info, please provide the following and I can escalate to try to get them blocked.*

Browser
Geo city state country
Timezone
IP address of the user
Platform OS browser

*As an incentive for reporting I will provide any member who gives us an accurate report of the above with a free one-year premium membership.*

Jeff M....."


----------



## Grumps

B Flat said:


> I'm getting bombarded with adds for things I've never expressed interest in or searched for in the past.


They listen to you as well, you know. Cortana runs in the background of Windows whether or not you're using it, or even if you shut it off. To fully eradicate it takes some skill, but it'll just pop back on for the next update.


----------



## JayeLID

dirty said:


> Just get an ad blocker, everyone. I like uBlock Origin the most.
> Chrome
> Firefox
> 
> There are a number of good ones.


Yup. Also suppresses commercials on YT vids.

It actually sorta shocks me when I see a friend using YT on their laptop and the commercials are there....it's such a simple step to remove 'em.

Likewise here, the pages are nice and clean and empty for the most part. Just the forum, no BS.


----------



## dirty

B Flat said:


> Well the tracking they're doing isn't working here.
> I'm getting bombarded with adds for things I've never expressed interest in or searched for in the past.


It's not just what you have looked at, but also their impression of _who_ you are and what they think a person of a certain demographic will like.

For anyone with Facebook, I would recommend requesting a dump of all of the data they have collected on you. There are sections that are just keywords that define you as a unit to be sold to advertisers. It's quite illuminating to see a tiny sliver of how that works. I got the full dump before I deleted my account and it definitely made me a lot more confident that I'd made the right decision.


----------



## ZootTheSim

dirty said:


> Privacy Badger


I asked a friend who's an expert in digital security, and he agrees that it's useful, at least for the time being.



Grumps said:


> We like to think of ourselves as consumers. But in this _brave new world_, we're the product.


Yes, as well as the labourers that make the product. In dystopian terms, we're kind of halfway between Brave New World and 1984. We produce our own media presence without compensation, and the product of this free labour attracts attention (including our own), which in turn generates ad revenue, even as our online activity is surveilled to direct those ads for greater profit.



dirty said:


> It's not just what you have looked at, but also their impression of _who_ you are and what they think a person of a certain demographic will like.


In the surveillant assemblage, we all have many data doubles, each of which lives independent virtual lives that affect us in real ways.

I took my exodus from most social media long ago, bar SOTW and a couple other forums.


----------



## skeller047

So - since this post gets a lot of views and replies, it now appears in the top of the feed when I first log in... Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on one's proclivities), the image that was deemed to sensitive in a post is not deemed too sensitive for the top bar of the forum.


__
Sensitive content, not recommended for those under 18
Show Content


----------



## Manitou

skeller047 said:


> So - since this post gets a lot of views and replies, it now appears in the top of the feed when I first log in... Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on one's proclivities), the image that was deemed to sensitive in a post is not deemed too sensitive for the top bar of the forum.
> 
> View attachment 106809


if you go to one of these links on startup, you won't even see that banner









Sax on the Web Forum


A forum community dedicated to saxophone players and enthusiasts originally founded by Harri Rautiainen. Come join the discussion about collections, care, displays, models, styles, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!




www.saxontheweb.net













New Posts







www.saxontheweb.net


----------



## Pete Thomas

skeller047 said:


> the image that was deemed to sensitive in a post is not deemed too sensitive for the top bar


Maybe different lots of deemings going on though


----------



## Pete Thomas

skeller047 said:


> So - since this post gets a lot of views and replies, it now appears in the top of the feed when I first log in... Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on one's proclivities), the image that was deemed to sensitive in a post is not deemed too sensitive for the top bar of the forum.
> 
> View attachment 106809


Bug fix:

_Featured Threads
Fix: Moderating a Featured Thread with NSFW (Not Safe for Work)_

_Issue: Mod/Admin would moderate the image on a Featured Thread as NSFW but it would not be removed from the list and would still be displayed._
_Status: Resolved. The Mod/Admin can moderate a featured thread with NSFW and it will be removed from the homepage._


----------



## skeller047

Thanks Pete - I actually found the whole thing amusing. A hidden picture appearing unhidden when going to Sax on the Web Forum. My browser shows a list of often visited sites when I create a new tab (at work, I often have 20 or 30 tabs open...) SaxOnTheWeb is first among these and it goes to the default page. I just hit the "New" or forum list icon, no problems.


----------



## Pete Thomas

skeller047 said:


> I actually found the whole thing amusing.


Me too. The NSFW spoiler appears to be a bit buggy still. I'm not sure whether it's something mods need to add, or whether it automatically detects a NSFW picture.

On a side note,funny IMO, there is a forum I am a member of and I was told by a moderator to remove my offensive avatar:


__
Sensitive content, not recommended for those under 18
Show Content


----------



## PigSquealer

Pete Thomas said:


> Me too. The NSFW spoiler appears to be a bit buggy still. I'm not sure whether it's something mods need to add, or whether it automatically detects a NSFW picture.
> 
> On a side note,funny IMO, there is a forum I am a member of and I was told by a moderator to remove my offensive avatar:
> 
> View attachment 106812


Obviously the moderator knew saxophones. That's not a 10M


----------



## JimD

Pete Thomas said:


> Me too. The NSFW spoiler appears to be a bit buggy still. I'm not sure whether it's something mods need to add, or whether it automatically detects a NSFW picture.
> 
> On a side note,funny IMO, there is a forum I am a member of and I was told by a moderator to remove my offensive avatar:
> 
> View attachment 106812


Obviously a Botticelli lover. Desecration of high art is an outrage and, anyway, she played alto.


----------



## Pete Thomas

PigSquealer said:


> Obviously the moderator knew saxophones. That's not a 10M


And my own forum blatantly has a pair of naked breasts in the header


----------



## PigSquealer

Sacks Of Phones said:


> My screen is not wide enough........


go to settings. Select wide screen.


Pete Thomas said:


> And my own forum blatantly has a pair of naked breasts in the header


? I cannot unsee this now. I'm ruined for life.


----------



## JL

skeller047 said:


> I actually found the whole thing amusing.


Same here. Not at all offensive as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## lostcircuits

Pete Thomas said:


> And my own forum blatantly has a pair of naked breasts in the header


Nice try, LOL
Unless you refer to Tts 🤪


----------



## DarrellMass

Being a ".net" website, with a name like "Newzgeeks" it's probably for a Usenet News Group, where all sorts of things can be had, by geeks of all interests.


----------



## ttfn

By the way, I forgot to mention that back when this thread was in the "featured threads" section at the top of the main page, the offending picture was not being censored. What I mean is, the picture was censored within the thread itself (showing the "18 years old" warning) but appeared uncensored at the top of the main page.


----------

