Sure, fine - we can agree on the hardcore porn. Maybe we can even agree on exposed female nipples?
What about sex education material? What about any content that includes an LGBT person? Because if you think I'm being hyperbolic, read page five of Project 2025.
That's not in any way unique to online ID checks. If a jurisdiction decides sex education material falls under "adult", then it does, and you have to handle that if you want to serve that jurisdiction. If it doesn't then it doesn't. Same as someone who wants to run a physical bookstore and wants to carry such things. I'm not seeing the complexity. If you don't like the line a jurisdiction draws, the thing to do is complain about that, not say that online businesses can just ignore laws that everyone else has to follow (and sites like imgur are well-resourced businesses with 10s of millions of dollars backing them. They can absolutely be expected to follow laws).
It's also easy for almost everyone to avoid worrying about the lines by just... not trying to exist right along them. If your photography discussion site just has a "no nudity" rule (or blanket puts nudity into its own adult-only section), then you don't have to worry about whether your photo is tasteful art or porn. These are normal rules anyway because sometimes people want to look at their hobby sites in public or at work and just see bird photos or whatever and not have passersby think they're a gooner, or see a surprise decapitation, etc. Even 4chan moderates their hobby boards and separates which ones allow adult material.
No, that's incorrect. Not one of the podcasts i listen to re-master their mp3s, the checksums stay the same. In fact, most of the podcasts i listen to have no ads at all. I wonder if there's some misunderstanding, here. If i go watch like an LTT video where they had a sponser, 5 years ago, that same "native ad" will be in the video. I'm specifically saying that the podcast apps i use do not inject ads, but podcasts themselves will do native advertising, i consider these completely different things.
Just to be clear, are you just saying the shows you listen to don’t do DAI, or are you doubting that DAI exists at all? I only ask because of your comment before the one I’m responding to here. It almost sounds like you think it isn’t possible or that no one does it.
Hosting services drop them in. You sign an agreement with them and they have agreement with advertisers who drop their spots into your show using DAI. Often it’s a straight up bid-system but the podcasters are not part of the process, or the podcasters can do the read and hand it over to be inserted. This means that podcasters in a lot of situations don’t actually know what ads are being run on their show.
These ads are not just not baked into the audio file, they are legitimately a mystery to the people running the show sometimes. And I think that that’s kind of unconscionable tbh. Podcasts (especially early on) owe a lot of their success to the feeling of “authenticity,” they feel more personal and less “corporate” generally. Whether that’s reality or not we can of course debate, but it’s how audiences perceived them. The reason on air reads have been generally successful for podcasts is because of the trust between the podcast and the audience that has been built over time. This runs directly counter to it.
when i use either of my podcast apps, it fetches an mp3 file (or streams it) and there's no additional ads (read this as "no additional non-native ads") that "change" when i listen again in a year. This means the podcasts that i listen to, i suppose, are not hosted on hosting platforms that inject ads. Because, as i think needs to be reiterated, podcasts are just mp3 files. you can host them with caddy, or nginx, or apache, all pointing at some file(s) in ./www/html/mp3/ One does not need to host it on "Acast" or other "podcast hosting providers", a podcast is just an mp3 file, which can be automatically fetched by anything that can download both rss and mp3 formatted files.
at a certain point, one has to ask themselves if whatever media they're ingesting is worth the scum.
a "podcast" is just an mp3 file, usually fetched by finding the URL via an rss feed. I am asking, perhaps a bit cheekily, "who is putting ads in", because that isn't a "feature" of podcasts. Stop getting podcasts from places that put ads in, support "podcasters" that don't do this scummy crap.
It's just an mp3 file!
edit: I should point out that i pitched, to Apple, the ability to dynamically insert ads sometime around ipod 5th gen, 2005-2006, but not for podcasts, but for downloadable videos, like "last night's TV show". I'm sorry i did this. I don't mean i had the idea and said "hey this is an idea", i had the entire infrastructure documented, it was drop in and go. Whoops.
I know what a podcast is, I have produced them for clients. I am honestly unsure what our discussion is about at this point.
DAI is a thing and my initial point several comments ago was that too many podcasts implement it, let advertisers drop their stuff in (not their own read), and never check what’s actually being run on their show. That’s all my point was about.
I think you're dramatically underestimating how big it was during its run.