DandomRude
@DandomRude@lemmy.world
- Comment on 1 hour ago:
Even young people don’t have the movie theater’s app because it’s completely useless. Only people who go to the movies regularly—and are therefore already regular customers—might use such an app. Of course, there are also promotional campaigns by the operators designed to encourage people to download their useless app—but I’m pretty sure most people only do that to get the discount and then delete the app right away.
Young people, in particular, can of course be reached through social media ads and the like, but you don’t seem to realize how expensive that is. I can hardly imagine that a local movie theater—or even a chain with many local locations—could achieve a halfway decent ROAS through this or other online marketing channels.
So in my opinion, it’s simply idiotic to ignore the prime advertising space this movie theater already has—after all, it costs almost nothing to hang a few extra posters on its own building. They could even do that alongside the food ads, which would make optimal use of this free advertising space. But they don’t do that; instead, they’ve removed all the movie posters for a single screen with food ads no one cares about.
I can’t understand the reason for that. If it has to be one or the other—which isn’t necessary at all—I think movie posters are much more effective. I mean, let’s be honest: Which is more useful to potential customers? Knowing which movie is currently playing—something you notice as you walk by, regardless of your age—or an ad for a small discount on tacos or something similar, that are still very expensive even after the discount?
Oh, and just to be clear: Of course, it doesn’t matter at all whether they’re actually posters or screens displaying the movie lineup.
The point is the informational value, which, of course, exists in the real world as well, not just online.
- Comment on 1 hour ago:
Well, I rarely plan to go to the movies—only on rare occasions, when I know a new movie I want to see is coming out.
I used to walk past the movie theater a lot, though, and see the posters and that’s how I found out about movies I didn’t know anything about or maybe knew of them but forgot. So it happened at least on occasion that I’d call some friends to go see the movie I’d just discovered by walking by the theater - on the weekend or something, not right away, of course.
I never really cared about the food options. Of course, I’d still buy popcorn and stuff, but a discount on it—after which the popcorn is still outrageously expensive—was just as little a motivation for me to go to the movies as any fancy seats or whatever. That’s all well and good, but it’s never been a reason for me to go to the movies. I went because of the movies—which I’d now have to research on my own, something I don’t do.
So: It may well be that I’m the exception. But in any case, I haven’t been to the movies since they replaced the posters with food ads. As I said, that’s simply because I don’t actively look up the lineup and therefore don’t realize that there might be a movie playing that would interest me—I certainly don’t care at all about the current popcorn prices, though.
- Comment on 2 hours ago:
Well, that’s how it was for me at least. The movie theater is right in the middle of town, which is why you’re constantly passing by it anyway. I don’t actively look up the current movie lineup, but I used to always be up to date because I passed by that theater almost every day and saw the posters.
Now I’m no longer informed about the current lineup, but instead only about the absurd prices for popcorn and stuff—I can’t say that motivates me to go to the theater’s website to see what’s playing.
Like I said: I haven’t been to the theater since they took down the posters. That’s not because tickets and popcorn would be too expensive for me, but because I have no idea which movies are playing right now. I don’t go out of my way to find out myself, but I used to walk past the theater and think, “Oh, cool, movie xyy is playing—I should go see that with friends this weekend.” That effect is now gone so I don’t go to the movies anymore.
- Comment on 3 hours ago:
Yes, that’s true, of course, but you’re not going to sell much if you don’t promote the lineup that actually draws in the customers, would you?
I mean, before, all you had to do was walk past the movie theater to find out what was playing. Like many others, I walk past it very often, and I’ve often spotted a movie that interested me and then come back a few days later to watch it.
Now I have to actively check their website to find out what movies are currently playing, which I don’t do very often.
The theater operators must be fully aware of this—as well as of the fact that the food options they’re now exclusively promoting are so expensive that they’re more likely to deter potential visitors than attract them.
It’s as if an attractive tourist destination were to advertise overpriced tourist-trap restaurants instead of the sights that make the destination appealing in the first place—and that would at least make the inflated prices somewhat understandable.
That should be obvious to any marketer or, for that matter, the management in charge. Customers, of course, aren’t interested in which products yield the highest profit margin for the company, but rather in what they get for their money—after all, no one goes to the movies for the popcorn, but for the films themselves. I’d say anyone who doesn’t understand that is completely out of place in this business. The experience has to be the movie; everything else is just an afterthought.
- Comment on 4 hours ago:
Yeah, I guess I should. I just can’t quite understand how anyone could fail to realize how absurd it is for a movie theater to use its most prominent advertising space not for promoting its movie lineup, but for food offerings.
To me, this strongly suggests that this movie theater—which is part of a large chain—now sees its main product as food rather than movies.
I have absolutely no sympathy for that, and I can only applaud it when a company like that loses customers because of its own idiocy.
- Comment on 6 hours ago:
My local movie theater in the heart of downtown has taken down the all movie posters outside the entrance and replaced them with a single screen that only shows ads for overpriced popcorn “deals”.
Before, anyone walking by knew which movies were currently playing; now, all they know is just how outrageously expensive the popcorn is.
I haven’t been to that theater since.
- Comment on Tesseract Dev (AdmiralPatrick) RageQuits Lemmy with Final Goodbye Message 2 days ago:
That reads exactly like this absurd video message from a power trippin reddit mod after he was removed for promoting a scam.
It’s just as completely out of touch with reality that you almost have to feel sorry for guys like that, because it’s obviously pathological.
On the other hand, though, these people are a threat to others—for freedom of expression and open discourse, the cornerstones of the Fediverse.
- Comment on Anon works in an office 1 week ago:
I think that’s precisely where the central problem of our time lies: in the imbalance between the value created and the social significance of jobs, on the one hand, and the compensation paid for those jobs compared to administrative and management positions, on the other.
The best example of this, in all its absurdity, is that billionaires are getting richer and richer—or rather, that they exist at all.
- Comment on Has anobody seen Odyssey? 1 week ago:
I think the best approach is to find reviewers whose tastes largely align with your own. Their reviews can serve as a good reference when you’re looking for a movie you haven’t seen yet.
There are simply too many criteria you could apply. The “Cinesiasts”, for example—who like films like Citizen Kane or works by Ingmar Bergman, Aki Kaurismäki, and the like—naturally know a great deal about their field. However, that by no means means their reviews would be a good reference point for the general public, who simply want to be entertained and don’t place too much value on artistic merit or the most elaborate technical skills of filmmakers.
- Comment on X is hosting a competing cage match during world cup finals 1 week ago:
True enough … well… I’d say that hardly makes it any less homoerotic, tho…
- Comment on X is hosting a competing cage match during world cup finals 1 week ago:
Hmm, where does this fascination come from—the fascination fascists have with watching sweaty, half-naked, hairy men wrestle with each other?
I wonder if it might have something to do with repressed feelings?
- Comment on Palantir CEO Alex Karp predicts he will get 20x richer from AI—but middle-class workers will get left behind 1 week ago:
What he fails to mention, however, is that the product of the company of which he is CEO is by no means intended to protect a country’s citizens, but rather to prevent them from defending themselves against unscrupulous, anti-social monsters like him.
- Comment on In a hearing on data centers, a resident of Tyrone Township, Michigan, asked a simple question: Have you signed a non-disclosure agreement? Officials refused to answer 2 weeks ago:
I think non-disclosure agreements and the existence of billionaires are mutually dependent.
- Comment on US Energy Secretary Chris Wright: “I'm thrilled to report that after 35 years, on July 4th, we will end the subsidies for wind and solar projects” 3 weeks ago:
Wow, the billionaires seem completely convinced that U.S. citizens will go along with anything… well, hmmm… who’s going to argue with them… it’s true, after all, that they do…
- Comment on Lemmy Shitshow 3 weeks ago:
Yep, sorry. But hey, this thread definitely has its fair share of mudslinging. Hope you’re getting your money’s worth.
- Comment on Lemmy Shitshow 3 weeks ago:
Hmm, well, the moderation workload does need to remain reasonably manageable for you guys.
I can’t really judge that, of course, but perhaps you could identify specific topics from the modlog that have repeatedly caused problems in the past. For example, posts about political parties (such as the two U.S. parties or the far-right AfD in Germany, etc.), political movements like MAGA, politicians like Trump and his allies, wars (such as the current U.S.-Iran conflict), or technologies like LLMs.
You could also try surveying the community itself to identify such “controversial topics,” perhaps in a pinned post, where you could set a minimum number of upvotes per suggestion for a suggestion to be included.
I think this would yield a number of concrete examples that illustrate what is meant by “no politics.” The more examples there are, the clearer it would probably be.
- Comment on Lemmy Shitshow 3 weeks ago:
Thank you very much for the background information. And also for the time you spend moderating—that is truly commendable and is indeed very much needed.
Perhaps I should have reached out to you directly, but I was so outraged that I didn’t, especially since this wasn’t the first post of mine you’d removed for the same reason.
Well, looking at all the downvotes here, it seems your approach to “showerthoughts” is being liked and even vigorously defended by many.
As I said, I see it differently and consider it very dangerous to define community rules so broadly that they simply leave the decision of what’s allowed and what isn’t exclusively up to the moderators. In your case, this seems to be done with caution and reasonable consideration. Nevertheless, I believe that rules must be clearly defined and transparent from the outset so that it’s clear what to expect.
As I said, I consider the “no politics” rule unsuitable for this, since there’s simply no such thing as a topic that might not be political to someone. Likewise, to ensure that decisions are not made purely on a whim.
But since many here seem to see it quite differently, I’m probably wrong. Still, I simply can’t accept that it’s a lottery whether my posts will be allowed or not in a general community that doesn’t have a fixed topic.
Therefore, I have to accept the rules and just post elsewhere, where there is no such rule. I think that’s better for everyone, since my posts at your community only seem to lead to conflicts, which is certainly not my intention at all.
If you’d like, I’ll delete this post here right away, but it seems to me that it might be a good way to gather some more opinions on the rule in question.
Please let me know if you see it differently—in that case, I’ll delete this post here immediately.
- Comment on Lemmy Shitshow 3 weeks ago:
Well, I simply didn’t have the motivation anymore, so I didn’t take the time to look for a community where this post might not have been removed.
However, since I’ve often found myself starting to read a post and leaving a comment on it, only to discover that the post had been removed because of this arbitrary “no politics” rule, I thought I’d use this admittedly salty post to point out what kinds of posts are currently being removed in one of the largest Lemmy communities.
I think it’s important for people to be aware that a community whose name suggests it’s a place to share your thoughts with others is, in fact, a community where a kind of “thought police” decides—based on their own sensitivities—what people get to see and what they don’t. That’s exactly what this “no politics” rule amounts to, because any topic can be interpreted as political if you don’t have a clear definition of what “political” actually means.
I don’t understand how so many people can think it’s a good idea to give moderators a rule that allows them to remove posts at will. It’s like banning posts about mathematics in a physics community—it’s simply absurd.
- Comment on Lemmy Shitshow 3 weeks ago:
Thanks for the heads-up! I guess that’s what I’ll do. It’s a shame that the largest communities, of all places, are censoring themselves like this.
- Comment on Lemmy Shitshow 3 weeks ago:
I’ll spare you any “hot takes” in the future by no longer participating in your “community” all together. That way, I won’t have to deal with the thought police who rule over your shower thoughts.
I can understand that moderation is time-consuming, but it’s pretty absurd what you’re pulling. It’s nothing short of arbitrary censorship, because there’s nothing in the world that can’t be called “political” in one way or another
So, in short: Mission accomplished—another user silenced who was disrupting your addiction to entertainment with pesky remarks about reality.
- Comment on Lemmy Shitshow 3 weeks ago:
Don’t worry, the bots will keep you well entertained. You don’t need to post anything at all; you can simply leave your comments and receive automated replies that fully take your feelings into account.
- Comment on Lemmy Shitshow 3 weeks ago:
Don’t worry, the bots will take over here, too—with delicious meals that are very healthy.
- Comment on Lemmy Shitshow 3 weeks ago:
Thank you very much!
I wasn’t aware that this was such a big issue in the Fediverse that there are already dedicated communities discussing it.
Until now, I’d assumed the matter was somewhat settled since the larger communities on .ml now have an equivalent elsewhere now. I’ve come across this problem several times elsewhere as well (the “no politics” rule, even though the post wasn’t political in any sense), but I guess I’m just completely out of the loop.
So it’s probably more a case of it being a different overlord (the U.S. instead of Russia).
I can only conclude from this that even platforms like Lemmy on the the Fediverse are controlled by billionaires. That might sound a bit like a conspiracy theory, but given their unscrupulousness, it seems all too likely to me.
Either way: for me, the matter is clear—you can’t express your opinion here either.
It’s disillusioning, but at least now I know how I need to conduct myself here.
- Comment on Lemmy Shitshow 3 weeks ago:
Can you name a single topic that isn’t political? And: How can you fail to see that such an indefinable rule is completely out of place in a free network? You must know that there are immeasurably wealthy people who have no qualms about buying their way to impose their worldview. How can you still believe it’s a good idea for many of the largest communities in the open Fediverse to establish rules that are so vague they not only make arbitrariness possible but actually encourage it?
- Comment on Lemmy Shitshow 3 weeks ago:
You could have posted this comment on my post if it hadn’t been removed by the mods at ShowerThoughts because it was apparently too political—at least according to arbitrary Rule 3, which always comes into play whenever something is posted that the mods don’t like, or maybe even those who send them a little money… I have no idea how things work there, but in any case, there’s no way to have a debate on this issue.
- Submitted 3 weeks ago to [deleted] | 56 comments
- Comment on "influencers" are setting us back 4 weeks ago:
I’m afraid, unfortunately, that it is precisely the idea that anyone could understand everything without much effort that makes people so susceptible to utter nonsense.
This also gives rise to the impression that so-called intellectual elites are nothing more than charlatans who want to pull the wool over the public’s eyes with their incomprehensible “intellectual secret language.” So people end up looking to idiots who, while having not the slightest clue about the subject, explain things in a way that anyone can follow—even without knowing anything about it themselves—or at least believe they understand all the “nonsense” those snobby scientists are spouting.
In my view, this effect—which definitely exists—also clearly reveals who is primarily responsible for it: namely, the operators of the major social media platforms, all of whom are billionaires that have a genuine interest in ensuring that the masses allow themselves to be duped.
If that were not the cause, this effect would have to occur particularly among the financial elite as well, and people would be asking en masse whether their vast power might be unjustified—yet this does not seem to be the case at all among the general public.
This in turn gives rise to the schizophrenic state whose effects we are witnessing today: People distrust science, but they do not question the goals pursued, for example, by climate change deniers, who by no means came up with their narratives on their own, but are well paid to spread them as widely as possible.
I fear that this problem could only be solved by significantly reducing the influence of billionaires on public opinion—but in our system, where they wield almost unrestricted power, this unfortunately seems virtually impossible.
- Comment on Demon slayer 4 weeks ago:
The body of Christ, given for you. Take and eat.
- Comment on Scientific fact 1 month ago:
The worst part is that negatively charged morons attract each other…
- Comment on Lort 1 month ago:
If you haven’t seen them yet: Check out the “Lego Scandal” videos by Reckless Ben.
While some of his methods are certainly questionable, and he does misrepresent certain things to boost the production value, what he experiences seems to me to be indicative of the state of the entire U.S. system.
While all of this happens on a relatively small scale, his observations appear to me to be the rule rather than the exception in this country.
