Which type of products are these? Does a still from a film count as advertising that movie?
member's 'portraits'
Sort:
Coca Cola tm
Thats what I mean: what are the ethics of such a situation?
A still from a film is not nearly as identifiable as , say, a can of coke or some other massive brand. Playboy's ears for instance. Or... ?!
You see so many ads these days just about everywhere that they don't even register anymore. I've been playing on this website for just over a year now and I can't recall off the top of my head more than 3 ads that I've seen. So if someone has an ad (and a very small one at that), that doesn't concern me at all.
Sep 22, 2010
0
#6
If you see any photos or profile pictures that contain spam, you can report them using the help & support link below. They are not allowed on the site.
K_Mex :- you've hit the nail on the head ! Whether you realise it or not.
It is because of their ubiquity that ads "don't even register any more " with you. On a conscious level that is. That doesn't mean they are not still successful advertisements. In fact, many ads want just that.
Think about it.
And just because one is "not concerned" personally is not the point. I am talking about ethics here. Not morals, not personal tastes; ethics.
Ditto the "Spam" suggestion.
Or is this too boring for y'all ?
- How boring. Ethics.- Ho Hum. Subliminal advertising. -Yawn. Madison Avenue manipulators. -Who ? Big Oil. Big Wars. Big Profits.- Whatever...
Microsoft.
Soylent green is people!
You people just don't get it do you...So d u m b !!!!!!!
Oct 19, 2010
0
#11
How could any of us manage to understand the complex ethical logic you offer? Without your guidance we wallow in ignorance. Please enlighten us, oh brilliant one!
There is nothing complex about it.Go look up the word "ethics" in a dictionary. Then apply those concepts to sneaky advertising and those who practice it. As for wallowing in ignorance, well, you have claimed that honour.
echecs06 wrote:
I don't think they are offensive, but dishonest most certainly.
You don't find dishonesty offensive ?!
Chess.com has guidelines dealing with offensive language and 'contentious' topics that shouldn't be discussed. Fair enough. But what about the photos etc, attached as a 'portrait' alongside a member's username? I refer in particular, to the use of photos that are advertisements.
Q: If someone wants to portray themselves as an advertisement - especially a particularly recognisable one, why should Chess.com be a party to a free product plug?
Q: Where does this behaviour leave Chess.com's paid members who are promised "no ads" ?
Q: Is a portrait that is also an ad, actually a form of product placement ?
Q:What are the copyright implications of members using commercially protected images as their "portrait' ?
Q: With the internet infested with ads do we really need to play chess - or even share a website - with someone who depicts his or herself as a commercial product ?
One could, perhaps, dismiss such behaviour as juvenile enthusiasm, naive boosterism or simply just boorish arrogance. This however is a serious ethical question that goes to the heart of current privacy issues.
Personally, I believe someone who chooses an advertisement - especially an instantly recognisable advertisement - as their online image, to be particularly offensive.