When they take the internet away..

[adionline]

I know then you either lose money or you get no traffic. Sure I lose $100k but I'll make it back over time from bankrupting another competitor.

This made me laugh. You honestly think you can throw around 100k here and there on random adwords phrases to "bankrupt" competitors? I hope you realize how retarded that sounds.

If you come in and outbid me for a top spot to try and "bankrupt me" (trollololol) I am just going to continue to bid at whatever makes me profitable and since you can only take up so much space with your strategy on search (let alone display) you're just going to lose 100k and I'll still make profit. So good fucking luck champ. (have fun explaining that one to your business partners...)

I am not going to even try and reply to the rest of the garbage you posted because frankly it's so far off that it's not worth the discussion.

 

[ItsYoBuddy]

I think the internet is clearly out of control. If you can't see that then you're either a criminal or delusional. The internet was given a chance to self regulate. But because it attracts 16 year olds with super egos, who think it's their God given right to start stealing from people, it clearly can't.

In most countries to start trading on the streets or trading full stop you need a street trading/trading license. Right now any retard, who buys a $17 ebook can try and make monies online. How sustainable is that? Bubble?

Like the banking system, greed will push the internet industry to the brink of collapse.

The IM world is full of people like this.

Millionaire High School Scam Artist - YouTube

Funny stuff:

 

[(O_o)]

because of how the internet is setup, i think its pretty much impossible to shut it down 100%.

+ you can always have intranets / p2p connections / tor

 

[cougarclaws]

 

[jryan21]

It's gonna be a while before the people trying to regulate it actually understand what it is they are trying to regulate. When bitorrent was the standard, they were still trying to shut down the 20 people who were still using gnutella and ed2k instead of working to make their content available to millions of people who had no problem paying for it.

Right now DoD types are collecting massive amounts of data, they have access to everything they need to do their jobs, but they have no idea how to use it. They want their shit to be like what it looks like on NCIS or 24, so instead of hiring people who know how to build it, they'd rather lock it down ina way that is not practically possible.

If you look at what has happened in the past, I don't think we're in danger of 'losing the internet'.

 

[Jeeta]

This made me laugh. You honestly think you can throw around 100k here and there on random adwords phrases to "bankrupt" competitors? I hope you realize how retarded that sounds.

If you come in and outbid me for a top spot to try and "bankrupt me" (trollololol) I am just going to continue to bid at whatever makes me profitable and since you can only take up so much space with your strategy on search (let alone display) you're just going to lose 100k and I'll still make profit. So good fucking luck champ. (have fun explaining that one to your business partners...)

I am not going to even try and reply to the rest of the garbage you posted because frankly it's so far off that it's not worth the discussion.

Well that's what you really never got. I'm not actually trying to bankrupt you, if I ever did deploy the tactic, (I personally do not but I do know of those who do) I'm more trying to drive you out of campaigns by distracting you long enough to believe it's no longer profitable. I don't even know the technical details behind it or how you would even go about deploying it, but I heard from someone in the industry that this is a new tactic that is starting to be used by those who really have the cash reserves to deploy it.

Unless I'm squeezing you from every angle possible which is almost impossible I agree, I'm not going to bankrupt you. If your business was that fragile to begin with and I only needed to knock over one traffic source, then you were going to blow yourself up at some point anyway.

Bankrupting would be the extreme case and it's more of those none internet savvy businesses, that are using pure Adwords etc to drive traffic.

 

[charlie.simm]

I think the internet is clearly out of control.

... and fortunately for us, governments will gladly "fix it" if we let them.

Do you think that more government involvement would be a good thing Jeeta?

I don't but if you do, I'm genuinely curious to find out why. FWIW, I'm not a libertarian because a few "deal breakers" tend to make me think twice before recommending this political philosophy but I do firmly believe that less government involvement is a good thing.

Humans sure as fuck aren't perfect and this economic climate tends to bring out the worst in most people but situations such as the SOPA drama manage to restore my faith in humanity every once in a while.

White people, black people, yellow people. Republican "rednecks" and democrat "hippies" as well as libertarians and so on. People from all sorts of backgrounds had the balls to say "dear government, GTFO!" and I respect that.

We need to be careful what we wish for because an attitude such as "oh come on, a bit more government involvement won't hurt" can and will have unfathomable negative consequences in my opinion.

 

[lose lose win]

We need to be careful what we wish for because an attitude such as "oh come on, a bit more government involvement won't hurt" can and will have unfathomable negative consequences in my opinion.

This.

I think people underestimate the reaches of military backed censorship.

because of how the internet is setup, i think its pretty much impossible to shut it down 100%.

+ you can always have intranets / p2p connections / tor

Admittedly, I don't know enough about the technical side of things to know how accurate this is. I hope you're correct, but many people that do know far more than you or I are convinced otherwise. Plus, I never said "shut it down".. I said "take it away", as in censor it. Make it the opposite of what it represents, which is freedom of speech. So while they may not be able to shut it down, it does seem it is within their power to change it.

Again, i'm no expert, and if you know otherwise... please share.

 

[Jeeta]

... and fortunately for us, governments will gladly "fix it" if we let them.

Do you think that more government involvement would be a good thing Jeeta?

I don't but if you do, I'm genuinely curious to find out why. FWIW, I'm not a libertarian because a few "deal breakers" tend to make me think twice before recommending this political philosophy but I do firmly believe that less government involvement is a good thing.

Humans sure as fuck aren't perfect and this economic climate tends to bring out the worst in most people but situations such as the SOPA drama manage to restore my faith in humanity every once in a while.

White people, black people, yellow people. Republican "rednecks" and democrat "hippies" as well as libertarians and so on. People from all sorts of backgrounds had the balls to say "dear government, GTFO!" and I respect that.

We need to be careful what we wish for because an attitude such as "oh come on, a bit more government involvement won't hurt" can and will have unfathomable negative consequences in my opinion.

No I don't. But I've acknowledged that there's certain areas that are running out of control. I don't think it can be changed because to change it would mean changing human nature itself, people will always look to exploit others and bend and twist the rules.

I think this industry burns it's own bridges and to be honest it's a very few selfish individuals who spoil it. Take Jesse Willms for example, he's just one individual who's just out to make a shit ton of money and be done with it. He doesn't care about the trail of destruction he leaves behind, he doesn't care about getting the FTC and the FBI hot on our tail. So long as he walks off with a pile of cash he can pick up all is good.

It's like being back at school some fucking retard misbehaves and they keep the whole class behind. That's how it'll be with slipping regulation in, they'll make an example of Jesse Willms, and how we're all a bunch of greedy bastards.

I do not want government restricting me in my online businesses, period. But it only takes one person, and the restrictions come in. We've already seen little bits of FTC rules being drip fed in.

We give powerful people like Jay Rockefeller, even more reason why the internet should never exist.

You have two conflicting groups of people online those who are in for the long term, building up their companies and business, and those who are looking to get in and out as quick as possible and don't give a shit who or what they hurt in the process so long as they make a shit load of cash.

I don't know what the solution to that problem is. The internet will always as far as I can see be a good platform for those who are looking to make a fast buck and be gone.

 

[charlie.simm]

I don't know what the solution to that problem is. The internet will always as far as I can see be a good platform for those who are looking to make a fast buck and be gone.

In my opinion, the solution is education, not regulation.

Let's not forget that the commercial Internet is less than 20 years old. Just look at how fast things evolved. In 2012 and beyond, more and more people will have a voice.

If someone scammed you, let others know via Facebook, tweet about it, post about what happened on your favorite forum(s) and so on. In 1998, most people didn't have a voice on the Internet. Now they do.

Self-regulation takes time.

Scams won't go away this year, they won't go away next year either.

You mentioned that scammers can take advantage of a low barrier to entry and I agree. But as time passes and as the Internet matures, the barrier to entry will gradually rise.

Internet users have two choices at this point: government intervention (the seemingly easy way out) or self-regulation (a process that takes time). I hope they choose the latter because as I'm sure you'll agree, the "easy way out" is rarely the best long-term solution.

 

[Jeeta]

In my opinion, the solution is education, not regulation.

Let's not forget that the commercial Internet is less than 20 years old. Just look at how fast things evolved. In 2012 and beyond, more and more people will have a voice.

If someone scammed you, let others know via Facebook, tweet about it, post about what happened on your favorite forum(s) and so on. In 1998, most people didn't have a voice on the Internet. Now they do.

Self-regulation takes time.

Scams won't go away this year, they won't go away next year either.

You mentioned that scammers can take advantage of a low barrier to entry and I agree. But as time passes and as the Internet matures, the barrier to entry will gradually rise.

Internet users have two choices at this point: government intervention (the seemingly easy way out) or self-regulation (a process that takes time). I hope they choose the latter because as I'm sure you'll agree, the "easy way out" is rarely the best long-term solution.

I think the problem is much deeper than just the IM world. I just don't think anybody can be bothered building real businesses any more? Maybe because of economic uncertainty, maybe because of the uncertainty of where the internet is heading, I just don't know. Maybe it's just plane greed, and nobody wants to actually produce anything of any value.

We've been the complex financial scams that have plunged the world into economic crisis. These are incredibly complicated and sophisticated scams, CDO's, CMO's and CSO's and other finacial products that were created for the pure purpose of greed and profit.

Would you not say as the barrier to entry becomes financially greater, the scams only become greatly more camouflaged and sophisticated? Of course there maybe less of them, because the initial capital outlay is large to successfully execute. But, I just think where some of the small time scammers are gone, you'll just attract a new tech savvy breed in. I mean you could call this 'lets build a company to sell' a sophisticated pump and dump scheme.

Some of these companies that are being built and floated are questionable, I mean you have LinkedIn which as a P/E ratio of something like 2,000+ and you ask yourself will it ever reach profitability or will it just flop. The best scams and frauds out there are those which are borderline legitimate.

I think a more open social web, will allow for the industry to self regulate because it'll harder to pull off scams f everybody is communicating on a greater level than ever before. But I still think we have a way to go. I think if consumer confidence goes continue to grow over time, converting fresh traffic and leads should be easier. I mean I don't know many people who walk down the high street worried about who's trying to scam them and who's not, I just hope that one day a similar level of confidence can be built online.

 

[charlie.simm]

maybe because of the uncertainty of where the internet is heading

Some of these companies that are being built and floated are questionable, I mean you have LinkedIn which as a P/E ratio of something like 2,000+ and you ask yourself will it ever reach profitability or will it just flop. The best scams and frauds out there are those which are borderline legitimate.

At this point, we can't just use "the Internet" as a term which encompasses all or even most business models. During the dot com bust, people were questioning the long-term potential of the Internet but these days, most Internet users are convinced that the Internet is here to stay.

Sure, you have companies like LinkedIn with outrageous valuations but what about Google with its ~$30 billion in net cash or Amazon with its ~$9 billion in net cash?

We've been the complex financial scams that have plunged the world into economic crisis. These are incredibly complicated and sophisticated scams, CDO's, CMO's and CSO's and other finacial products that were created for the pure purpose of greed and profit.

Would you not say as the barrier to entry becomes financially greater, the scams only become greatly more camouflaged and sophisticated? Of course there maybe less of them, because the initial capital outlay is large to successfully execute. But, I just think where some of the small time scammers are gone, you'll just attract a new tech savvy breed in.

It's not just a matter of the barrier to entry becoming financially greater, it's also a matter of education, as mentioned previously. IMO, the Internet can and will help the masses make informed decisions offline and not just online in the long run if we let it.

When it comes to the Internet, the financial barrier to entry will gradually rise and as you explained, that will weed out the "small timers" but when it comes to the "sharks" like Bernie Madoff, it obviously takes more than that. Education plays an essential role and again, in the long run, self-regulation will make it possible for the Internet to turn into a powerful tool which helps the masses make informed decisions.

But I still think we have a way to go.

I agree, we have a long way to go.

And precisely because we have such a long way to go, a lot of people will be tempted to choose "the easy way out" (more government involvement) instead of letting self-regulation gradually improve the Internet.