I found one when I was 13 and I was suspended for giving out pages of it. The only scene I remember from that magazine was an icicle dildo. WTF
An older kid (who would have been 20 or so at the time) built a cabin in the woods that was literally full of porn magazines. I mean this cabin had to be something like 3 meters squared, and the outside walls all had countertops. These countertops were covered with layers and layers of porno mags. I couldn't guess how many magazines there were if I tried. Hundreds. Maybe thousands. Our neighbour friends told us about it after they discovered it by chance. These friends, my brother, and I went to go check it out as soon as they told us about it. It was like finding heaven for boys our age (except a creepy, icky heaven..). And then my brother stole like 50 magazines, and built his own fort to store them in. I was probably about 13 at the time, and my brother was about 15. The other kids were about 13 and 14. I was too afraid of either getting caught by this bully, or of possible biological fluids that this cabin was surely covered in. I didn't really touch anything, but I looked.
That wasn't even the first access to porn we had though. When I was about 10 or 11 we were visiting friends of ours. Their father was a divorced police officer. Apparently he had a stash of playboys. I'm not sure if he gave his sons playboys or if they snuck them behind his back, but regardless they showed them to us. I remember one of the women had protruding labia minora and none of us knew what they were. The other boys were disgusted by it, but I was intrigued. I think by about 12 or so my brother had also figured out how to find porn on the Web, and had shared his knowledge with me.
Back in those days though the lingerie section of Sears catalogues was also effectively softcore porn for kids (or anyone else desperate enough). Especially the two fat catalogues that were distributed at Christmas and for summer. I made good use of those back in the '90s! Boys are innovative when it comes to accessing stimulating material.
A true social network is not profitable.
I wonder what you would need to charge the average user of a social network the size of Facebook to afford the cost. It's probably not prohibitive for most people. I bet most people in the West would be willing to pay $5 or $10 per month to use it ad-free. That is millions, if not billions, in revenue. It's probably a viable strategy for an ethical social network. I would gladly pay to use one that worked for me, but only if it also worked for my family, friends, peers, etc.
There's nothing wrong with running ads to pay the bills.
Not inherently, no. The trouble starts when the advertising is misleading or disruptive. Essentially when ethics are set aside and profit is the only motivator. Which probably started in the '50s or '60s and has only gotten worse.
Think about what false advertising really means: it means that products or services that don't work can still be successful. This is the epitome of waste. It exists because of this silly notion that every family needs to earn their own keep. And so instead of having your basic needs met you need to come up with some kind of hustle to convince people to give you money. There are only so many things you can do that actually work and are affordable and still profitable.
The worst are the products and services that do more harm than good to our world. These are literally destroying the habitats that are vital to our survival and the survival of millions, if not billions, of life forms on this planet. All in the name of "earning" survival. It's sickening.
Traditional media like TV, radio, magazines, etc have run ads in their content for a long time and it was not really a problem.
It really was becoming a problem, but the Web dwarfed the problems of TV advertising. A few problems with TV ads:
The volume was generally boosted on the ads so that when you left the room to get snacks or pee you could still hear the ad. If you happened to stay sitting on your couch though the volume was suddenly painfully high. Also if anybody was sleeping they are now awake and they're blaming you.
The ads often made outlandish claims that were outright dishonest.
The ads would simulate a product or service working perfectly, and imply that the product or service actually worked that well, knowing full well that it doesn't.
Kids are fully gullible to advertising. Humans are in general. We typically believe what we're told. Unfortunately, due to nefarious forces such as religion and politics we're not taught as a society to be skeptical. Instead we're taught to just have faith and believe. Only adults that have experienced false advertising before and/or consciously choose to be skeptical will be oblivious to the ads.
On a side note: if Axe body spray worked as well as advertised would it be rape to take advantage? If so does that imply that Axe is encouraging rape?