Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Spitballin' ways to fix America (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter The Dude
- Start date
I've got mixed feelings on that. As a consumer, if I am going to support a site by allowing ads, I'd much prefer they be ads about something I'm interested in. So I'm very much in favor of that.
We don't do hardly any advertising at Footballguys, but the ability to serve ads to an audience that has demonstrated an interest in Fantasy Football is a positive.
So I'm mixed there.
But even without targeted advertising, it seems like the media sites would still operate the same way. They might be even more clickbaity that way.
I think the one thing that might work is if we consume differently.
For instance, I posted the thread the other day where a guy assembled twitter posts that framed a court case in a biased way.
I thought the logical response was, "That sucks. These sites need to do better". If lots of us did that, it might make a difference.
But much of the response was, "Well you know that guy appeared on ________ network and once worked for the _________ administration" and then minimized what the media sites had done.
As long as we stay that tribal to make sure our side deflects the criticism, I'm not sure it'll change.
For instance, I posted the thread the other day where a guy assembled twitter posts that framed a court case in a biased way.
I thought the logical response was, "That sucks. These sites need to do better". If lots of us did that, it might make a difference.
But much of the response was, "Well you know that guy appeared on ________ network and once worked for the _________ administration" and then minimized what the media sites had done.
As long as we stay that tribal to make sure our side deflects the criticism, I'm not sure it'll change.
But on my bigger point, I do think we have more power as consumers than maybe we think.
Consumers have mostly made it so racism is not acceptable in media reporting.
It's obviously less important, but maybe we do something similar with media that is clearly biased with the intent to divide or grab clicks. Probably wishful thinking.
Consumers have mostly made it so racism is not acceptable in media reporting.
It's obviously less important, but maybe we do something similar with media that is clearly biased with the intent to divide or grab clicks. Probably wishful thinking.
Last edited by a moderator:
sho nuff
Footballguy
Agreed. We would all like it to be better. But no way people agree on how or who would be enforcing that.
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
100% we do. However, I am more doubtful that we will do much on that end. We have a group of successful, intelligent people in these threads who should and do know better, and we are constantly bickering around sources and how to consume info. How does average American have a shot at making those choices?
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
So, I recognize that my feelings about consumer culture and capitalism generally aren’t widely shared. But from my perspective, I’d much rather be forced to see ads for things I am completely uninterested in purchasing. And I think the case against targeted ads as a “benefit” to consumers gets much worse if we broaden our perspective from an individual level to a societal level.
AAABatteries
Footballguy
- SC term limits
- Max age for POTUS and other positions
- Term limits for Congressmen
- RCV
- This is a radical one but I’d do away with political parties - no clue the ramifications but I do know it would force people to actually have to make some kind of decision on picking a candidate. As it is there’s a huge portion of our population who just vote for one party without bothering to educate themselves on the candidates.
- Cut defense spending
- Mandatory one year service (military, national parks, something)
- BIG (I feel like this has to happen due to automation - maybe not in the next 5, 10, 20 years but eventually)
- How about something really crazy - let’s require the richest 25 people in the country to be on a task force to end homelessness or give them a quarterly or yearly task to solve. (I’m literally making this one up on the fly so maybe this is a horrible idea or the start of a great idea - not sure)
- Max age for POTUS and other positions
- Term limits for Congressmen
- RCV
- This is a radical one but I’d do away with political parties - no clue the ramifications but I do know it would force people to actually have to make some kind of decision on picking a candidate. As it is there’s a huge portion of our population who just vote for one party without bothering to educate themselves on the candidates.
- Cut defense spending
- Mandatory one year service (military, national parks, something)
- BIG (I feel like this has to happen due to automation - maybe not in the next 5, 10, 20 years but eventually)
- How about something really crazy - let’s require the richest 25 people in the country to be on a task force to end homelessness or give them a quarterly or yearly task to solve. (I’m literally making this one up on the fly so maybe this is a horrible idea or the start of a great idea - not sure)
Thanks. Without knowing more, I'm not sure how widely shared your views are on capitalism and consumerism. If they're more on the anti-capitalism side I'd guess they're popular.
Can you elaborate more on "But from my perspective, I’d much rather be forced to see ads for things I am completely uninterested in purchasing".
Sparky Big Time
Footballguy
I might suggest we start by limiting government to the fullest possible extent. Get them out of the way.
That would go a long way.
That would go a long way.
Sparky Big Time
Footballguy
Weaken the central government, allow the states to have more power.
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
In my experience it’s extremely rare to see an advertisement for a product that I didn’t know existed which I then purchase and it improves my life. That’s pretty much the sole situation in which it feels like advertising clearly is a benefit to the consumer.
The overwhelming majority of the time I find that advertising serves the purpose of enticing people to buy stuff they don’t need, often for stupid reasons like status. The process of enticing us frequently takes the position of “this is the product you need that will make you happier.”
Like most people I wear clothes. I don’t have a ton of clothes and they aren’t especially fancy but I try not to look too much like a dork. And because I hate actually shopping I primarily buy clothes online. So that means I routinely get targeted ads for clothes. And I don’t really try to pay a lot of attention to the ads but sometimes I’m like “Huh, maybe I need to be wearing different clothes. Because those people look very trendy and the crap I’m wearing doesn’t look like that.”
I don’t generally buy the clothes. But I don’t like that feeling of trying to be manipulated into buying something.
This is much less of an issue with respect to products I have no need or interest in at all. The ads that I really would like to be targeted towards me are for things to fix problems that I don’t have. Those ads make me feel good about myself and they don’t try to get me to buy anything.
Sparky Big Time
Footballguy
There was a time when we had one phone company, it was effectively a monopoly. The government acted on this, forced it to break apart and initially people were not all that happy because prices rose and service declined.
Eventually that break up forced innovations through competition and now we have smart phones as a result. Do we "need" a smart phone, absolutely not. But the innovation has brought with it some real benefits to society, at a cost.
So, I am reluctant to have "need" designated by others for me. I do not "need" many things I have earned and secured. But I would rather have our existing system than the socialist approach that focuses on "need".
Thanks for the insights. I can see that.
I think much of it is how one views advertising as the advertiser. If the goal is manipulation, that's one thing. Those kind of people I think see advertising as something you do "to" the customer.
If the goal is showing a potential customer the value of. your product, that's very different. Those kind of advertisers see advertising as something you do "for" the customer.
There's a huge difference there.
quick-hands
Footballguy
Advertising consumer products is of little concern to the problems facing our country. If there is concern from what Facebook does in targeting users it should be directed at how Facebook directs partisan news stories at users which mirrors their views and reinforces their one-sided partisan worldviews. This further entrenches people into their camp and keeps them misinformed about the bigger picture and less understanding of other perspectives.
knowledge dropper
Footballguy
Identity theft and all telemarketing or phishing/computer scam artists at home and abroad are treated as harsh as we can.
Da Guru
Fair & Balanced
I am at the point I would like the "No Party" system. Would like to see canidates who run on their own merits and cross back and forth the old party lines. A group who is not afraid to work together back and forth without fear of being black balled for when election day comes up.
Myself now I feel like a person without a party and know many like me.
I agree advertising stuff like I was talking about is a pretty distinct different thing than a problem with America.
I should probably make it it's own thread as I do think it's interesting.
How is that any different than the current system? If I vote for the libertarian candidate, I'm also denied any say between the top two candidates.Philo Beddoe said:“In a 2016 essay in Democracy, Simon Waxman argues that RCV doesn’t actually lead to a candidate who represents the majority of voters. Also, an easily exhausted electorate doesn’t always rank all the candidates on a ballot, according to a 2014 paper in the journal Electoral Studies that looked at ballots from 600,000 voters in California and Washington counties. As a result, some voters end up with their ballots eliminated and no say in the final outcome.
Say there were five names on a ballot and you only ranked three, who were all eliminated, your now-blank ballot wouldn’t be counted in the final vote at all. You will not have expressed any choice about the two leading candidates.”
RCV
This is basically an argument that since some people are lazy/uninformed such that they prefer not to have a say, we shouldn't give anyone a say.
Philo Beddoe
Footballguy
You made the choice to vote for the lib. With RCV you are forced to assign a rank to all the candidates even though posters stated that to be untrue which is incorrect. I’ve never said I was against it. I’ve never participated in it or have seen the functions of it to make that determination. I was looking for cons and this appears to be one of them. It also seems like it would be just as easy for special interests to promote their candidate or candidates of choice.
quick-hands
Footballguy
Manster
Footballguy
Teach your children well. They are the future leaders.
My wife and I are trying to help our children navigate this crazy ### world. We teach them to be responsible citizens......To treat ALL people with respect. Work hard, and don't expect anyone, or especially the gub, to take care of you. It's not easy.....there are powerful forces at work to keep us dependent on the gub, and fighting with eachother....this has trickled down to school aged children.
Some solutions....
Social media regulations, and age limits.....ie kids can't be on it.
More power to teachers, and admin to punish kids who need it.......literally, the 'inmates are running the asylum" at our schools.
Hold media accountable. The outright lying, or withholding/downplaying important facts to get the story to fit their narrative is dangerous. The Rittenhouse case was a sad deal all the way around.......it's also a perfect example of media doing the above.
My wife and I are trying to help our children navigate this crazy ### world. We teach them to be responsible citizens......To treat ALL people with respect. Work hard, and don't expect anyone, or especially the gub, to take care of you. It's not easy.....there are powerful forces at work to keep us dependent on the gub, and fighting with eachother....this has trickled down to school aged children.
Some solutions....
Social media regulations, and age limits.....ie kids can't be on it.
More power to teachers, and admin to punish kids who need it.......literally, the 'inmates are running the asylum" at our schools.
Hold media accountable. The outright lying, or withholding/downplaying important facts to get the story to fit their narrative is dangerous. The Rittenhouse case was a sad deal all the way around.......it's also a perfect example of media doing the above.
Chaz McNulty
Footballguy
Why not reward both. Keep the electoral college, but treat the popular vote as part of the electoral college. You could make it equal to the average state. Currently the average is 11.75 electoral votes per state. So you can have the winner of the popular vote gain an additional 11.75 electoral college votes.
This would encourage more voting in states that lean heavily one way. I'm sure many people don't bother voting in states like California or Alabama because the winner is a foregone conclusion. By having the popular vote mean something, you might encourage these people to vote.
Philo Beddoe
Footballguy
sho nuff
Footballguy
Seems to be a problem in this country. People being against something simply because the other side is for it.
roadkill1292
Footballguy
This is, again, incorrect. With RCV one can vote for as few as one candidate.
We have a bunch of folks on this board (and in this country) who are not well versed in alternative voting methods. We shouldn't be spreading inaccurate information to muddle their efforts to process new concepts.
Philo Beddoe
Footballguy
roadkill1292
Footballguy
That piece pointed out some of the shortcomings of RCV and they are real. It does not support your contention that a voter is compelled to rank multiple candidates. That's because RCV systems do not require voters to do what you're saying and you seem to be the only one who believes in this non-existent requirement.The link I posted refutes that. Can you show me otherwise?
If there are five candidates running for a single office, you MAY rank all five. You MAY stop after one.
Similar threads
