Cafe Press anti-Obama ads on Photo Net

[mhahn]

<p>Cafe Press is using their ads on Photo Net to market tee shirts, mugs, etc., festooned with anti-Obama slogans.</p>

<p>I find their stuff very objectionable. It seems to me to be one step, and perhaps not even that, removed from outright racism.</p>

<p>I sincerely wish that this advertising would be removed from Photo Net and hope that others feel the same way.</p>

 

[joshroot]

<p>I have yet to see any of this.</p>

<p>But as far as I know, cafe press is just part of the google adwords system and tends to show you stuff based on your browsing history. I.E. I see fishing ads when I visit fishing sites/stores. If you've been reading a lot of political stuff over the past 24 hours, then you may be seeing political related products from cafe press.</p>

<p>Also, why are you seeing ads at all? You are a subscriber. Send me a screenshot if you are seeing ads when you are logged in.</p>

[mhahn]

<p>Right now I'm seeing an Art Institute ad at the top of the page; on the right side of the page, a lens ad from PriceGrabber and an ad from Sigma; a Sprint ad at the bottom of the page, etc. I don't know whether I'm supposed to be seeing this or not as a subscriber. Am not seeing the Cafe Press ad right now, however.</p>

<p>Are you saying that Photo Net doesn't necessarily have any say in what ads I see on the site?</p>

<p>p.s. An ad from ABC television is at the bottom of this page as I type this post.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Signed in, here, and seeing none such.</p>

[philrichardson]

<p>I'm logged in as a member and I don't see any Cafe Press ads. On this page I just see a few ads for lenses from Samy's, B and H, etc. On other pages I see very few ads, thanks to the new system.</p>

[mhahn]

<p>Was Josh saying that we each see different ads based on what sites we've visited? I did visit the Cafe Press site, to see what it was, from a link that was included along with a picture posted on Photo Net a few days ago.</p>

<p>If so, it's evidence that the algorithm that chooses what we see can't yet read our minds. There's not a chance in the world I would ever buy one of their foul products.</p>

[mhahn]

<p>To be fair, I just took a quick visit to Cafe Press's website, and they have a lot of stupid, innocuous stuff. It's not all invective-laced hate slogans. In fact, I didn't even see the anti-Obama stuff that I saw when I linked to their site from the ad that I saw earlier in the day. So, I'm a little confused.</p>

[mhahn]

<p>And then I searched a little more on the Cafe Press website and did find the offensive anti-President Obama slogans on a tee shirt for sale that I directly linked to earlier. And I sent them an e-mail to tell them that they ought to clean up their act and that I for one would never buy a damn thing from them.</p>

<p>And I know I've gone a little off-topic from Photo Net matters by now, but this did start when I linked to the Cafe Press site from Photo Net.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Hopefully, Martin, you also gave them a hard time about the anti-everyone-else shirts, too. Right? Point is, such publishers/printers are pretty equal opportunity about the snarky political stuff. </p>

[jeff_schraeder1]

<p>Josh,<br>

I had nothing better to do this morning so I scrolled through Cafe Press articles on President Obama. I looked at over 800 items and the only racist one's I found were direct comments that it was preferable to have a black president. This is exactly the kind of gratuitous post you should delete. </p>

 

[mhahn]

<p>Articles? They sell tee-shirts, mugs, etc., with at the best stupid slogans and at the worst, hate-filled invectives, and I HATE this anti-Obama for the reasons already stated.</p>

<p>Matt, you make a reasonable point, but I'm just feeling it about President Obama right now. Jeff, you must have been looking at something else.</p>

<p>This is the link: <a href="http://www.cafepress.com/politicallyinjected/9242783">http://www.cafepress.com/politicallyinjected/9242783</a></p>

<p>And this link was on Photo Net, to which I am a subscriber. That is why I am making a point about this. </p>

[jeff_schraeder1]

<p>2 things I'm tired of:<br>

1. Spurious claims of racism <br>

2. Illiteracy:<br>

article |ˈärtikəl|noun1 <strong>a particular item or object, typically one of a specified type </strong><strong>: </strong><strong>small household articles </strong><strong>| </strong><strong>articles of clothing.</strong>2 a piece of writing included with others in a newspaper, magazine, or other publication : an article about middle-aged executives.3 a separate clause or paragraph of a legal document or agreement, typically one outlining a single rule or regulation : [as adj. ] it is an offense under Article 7 of the treaty.4 Grammar see definite article , indefinite article .</p>

[mhahn]

<p>If you go to the link I provided above, there is some pretty distasteful stuff: for instance, a tee shirt with a picture of President Obama and a picture of Adolph Hitler. So, call it racism, call it something else. I call it beyond what I find acceptable in a depiction of the current president of the United States.</p>

<p>Perhaps Photo Net doesn't have any control over such ads appearing on the website. That is something I don't really understand.</p>

[mark_chartrand]

<p>I haven't seen any CafePress ads on P.net, but I think a lot of their stuff is quite clever. I don't take offense from anything I see or read. I may not like some photographs, but I don't get upset by looking at them and say they shouldn't be shown. To each his own.</p>

<p>Some people even think some politicians are honest. You should just vote for the least offensive one running. Don't bother trying to tell me what I should read or view. I don't care for censorship of any kind.</p>

[mhahn]

<p>I'm just telling you the type of paid advertising that I think a website that I am a paid subscriber to should accept, and it should not be from a business that sells tee-shirts that equate President Obama with Adolph Hitler. And no, I don't think that's clever.</p>

<p>I'm not telling anyone else what they should read or not read; for me, it is a question of what goes on a site that I have financially contributed to. But perhaps this is not really within Photo Net's control.</p>

[mhahn]

<p>I provided the link above, Mark. Take a look. Maybe you would find some of that that stuff at least somewhat offensive.</p>

[frank_skomial]

<p>"<em>Perhaps Photo Net doesn't have any control over such ads appearing on the website. That is something I don't really understand."</em></p>

<p>Yes to both statements.</p>

<p>Your correct statement should be that this link was <strong>delivered with</strong> the photo.net page to your location.<br>

That is why others did not get it.</p>

<p>It cannot be removed by photo.net since it does not exist on photo.net.<br>

Most likely it was inserted by your Internet service provider somewhere in your location or your vicinity, or by another organization that hosts Internet traffic, and could possibly intercept pages and alter them.</p>

<p>It is easy to recognize Header and Footer sections on a page that flows through a server, and insert unauthorized extra information, yet preserving sanity of the page without destroying it.</p>

<p> </p>

[frank_skomial]

<p>"<em>I scrolled through Cafe Press articles"</em><br>

and for Josh:<br>

"<em>This is exactly the kind of gratuitous post you should delete."</em></p>

<p>Josh has no authority to go to the Cafe Press web site and delete anything there.<br>

Josh has no means to prevent others with the Internet transfers authority, from adding extra information to photo.net pages sent out and corrupted on the way of delivery. </p>

<p>There was prior discussions about bogus e-mail notifications appearing at the top of some pages delivered to some people.</p>

<p>There were incidents of complaints about unexpected and problematic information posted at the top or bottom of some pages.</p>

<p> </p>

[mhahn]

<p>I loathe the anti-Obama merchandise sold at Cafe Press, but I probably should have never started this thread.</p>

[User_2000406]

<p>Martin, maybe you have adware (a kind of malware) on your computer. I see never see any ads here but you're a subscriber just like I am.</p>

[mhahn]

<p>Bill, I seem to be seeing fewer ads on Photo Net since I logged in and out a few days ago. I think I may no longer be seeing any ads at the top or bottom of the page at all.</p>

<p>That being said, it's instructive to see what's out there, and I wouldn't want to think that I am being "shielded" from what nonscribers to Photo Net might be seeing simply because I am a subscriber.</p>

<p>Here's a link to a relevant article in the Christian Science Monitor: <a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/President/2012/0320/Anti-Obama-slogans-with-racist-slants-on-the-rise-in-Election-2012">http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/President/2012/0320/Anti-Obama-slogans-with-racist-slants-on-the-rise-in-Election-2012</a></p>

<p>To anyone who says this has nothing to do with Photo Net, why do you bring this up, etc., I've thought about it a little bit, and, well, I saw it on Photo Net, so it is relevant.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<blockquote>

<p>I saw it on Photo Net, so it is relevant</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No, you saw it on your <em>web browser</em>. An advertising syndicator with access to that slot placed the ad there - it wasn't Photo.Net creating, posting, or editorially blessing a particular ad from a particular product/publisher, especially one (like Cafe Press) that serves up such on all sorts of subject matter. That would include snide and even jerky sloganeering aimed <em>all</em> parts of the political spectrum. There's plenty of adolescent claptrap to go around if you're obsessed with it and go looking for it. Photo.Net gets some of its revenue from syndicated ads, and has no control over specific, individual ads streamed in from approved <em>sources</em> of ads.</p>

[mhahn]

<p>I see your point Matt, and you make it well; nevertheless, I don't agree with it 100 percent. For one thing, I have no idea who the "syndicator" might be. So, if I alert Photo Net's administrators' that this ad was placed in the place provided by their site, and they agree that the ad is objectionable, then perhaps they can complain to the provider. </p>

<p>I didn't go looking for this, but I'm glad I found it. I'd rather be aware of what's out there, and who's providing it, than not. I'm sure that Cafe Press also sells a lot of stuff with juvenile jokes and slogans, but I don't agree that this stuff fits into that category. It only seems to, when it's printed on tee-shirts and mugs. When I voiced my objections to Cafe Press, they disclaimed responsibility, because they say their "content" is provided by their customers. That's a cop-out, if ever I heard one.</p>

[mhahn]

<p>Anyway, it's probably more true than not that the Cafe Press ad was placed where it was based on my previously having gone to their site from a link in a Photo Net photo critique. I didn't stop to think that that's how it worked before I started this discussion, and I probably should have done that. But I just lost it for a bit when the link took me right to a page selling nothing but stuff I found very objectionable.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Martin, as others have mentioned before, once you've logged in as a subscriber you shouldn't be seeing ads at all.</p>

<p>I just tripled checked using Firefox, Chrome and Internet Explorer. With all three, as soon as I log in most ads are gone. The only exception was that some photo equipment ads from photo.net partners are visible using IE. No non-photo ads are visible in any browser once I've logged in. I'm using a Windows 7 PC with all browsers up to date.</p>

<p>Some ads are visible along the sidebars just before I log in, but I hardly notice them unless the graphics and layout are particularly memorable. I like good graphic design so occasionally a well done - or extremely poorly done - ad will catch my eye.</p>

[mhahn]

<p>Thank you, Lex, for taking the time to check this out, but I was definitely logged in at the time I saw that ad. I'd been logged in for a long time, as a matter of fact, so I did log out and then back in, to see if that would make a difference. And it did eliminate the ads placed horizontally, across the top of the page, which is where I saw the ad in question. (It also seems to leave a blank box at the bottom of the page, were there had previously been an ad; I think I'd prefer to see an ad than a blank box, but whatever.)</p>

<p> </p>

[mhahn]

<p>As a for instance, attached is a screen shot taken yesterday when I was logged in, showing a Cafe Press ad.</p><div></div>