The Indelible Bonobo Experience

Renaissance Monkey: in-depth expertise in Jack-of-all-trading. I mostly comment on news of interest to me and occasionally engage in debates or troll passive-aggressively. Ask or Submit 2 mah authoritah! ;) !

The plot thickens. They replied with:

Date:2014-06-24 21:27:40Name:Sammy

Message:


Thank you for contacting Kijiji Community Support. I can certainly understand your confusion about the removal of your ad and I would be glad to explore this issue further.

For your own reference, Airsoft guns, guns, knives, bows and other weapons accessories (including dot scopes) are strictly prohibited on Kijiji. This policy is in place as Airsoft guns are classified as “Replica Firearms” in Canada.

Furthermore, after some discussion with local authorities we have determined that Airsoft guns are considered a controlled weapon by the Canadian government and many Police forces. This is based on the velocity of the rounds as they exit the weapon. Paintball markers do not have the ability to fire at speeds that would bring them under this category therefore we do permit those on the site.

I know it can be frustrating when you see other users posting Airsoft ads for sale on Kijiji. Rest assured that our moderators work very hard to keep these off the site, however, due to the sheer volume of ads posted on Kijiji each day, it can take time for our moderators to see the ads in question. 

If you do come across another Airsoft ad, we encourage you to use the “Report Ad” link on the top right corner of the ad. This will let our moderators know that the ad requires review and possibly removal from the site. 

I thank you for your cooperation and understanding. 

Please do not hesitate to contact us with any further questions or concerns. Have a great day!

Sammy
Kijiji Community Support

Date:2014-06-25 12:52:33Name:

Message:

I don’t think I have made myself clear. I will publish all the relevant info on a blog, structured in a more easy to read manner so that you can be better able to explain your rules, because as of yet they make no sense, seem arbitrary, and if your rules make no sense it is likely that more people other than me cannot understand them. This results in a lower quality experience for both buyers and sellers and staff spending time explaining the inexplicable.

Once again, I will explain this in an article. Until then, I would appreciate it if you can clarify for me:
1. Is this an issue of legality? Do you routinely censor ads of merchandise legally purchased in stores (this item was purchased at Walmart in Toronto in 2008)?
2. Are you censoring because of particular rules or laws or simply based on a conversation with a police officer? If it is a law or bylaw, can you point me to it?
3. If you are censoring based on a conversation with a police officer, can you detail who this person was and when did this conversation take place?
4. Have you at all taken into consideration “the velocity of the rounds as they exit the weapon” for this particular item? Do you know the maximum such velocity for a device advertised on your site?
5. If you do not have any data regarding such velocity (I don’t have it either) and your interfering with my ad is based solely on your perception that it is an airsoft gun, then you should surely agree that I could list a paintball marker. Please let me know if that is incorrect.

(Source: inbonobo)

This year, the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism asked thousands of people around the world what sort of news was most important to them. The graph below shows the responses from Americans. International news crushed celebrity and “fun” news by a margin of two-to-one. Economic and political news finished even higher. (via Why Audiences Hate Hard News—And Love Pretending Otherwise - Derek Thompson - The Atlantic)
But what happens when we stop asking readers what’s important and start looking at what they actually read?

Audiences are liars, and the media organizations who listen to them without measuring them are dupes. At the Aspen Ideas Festival last year, Ehab Al Shihabi, executive director of international operations for Al Jazeera America, shared survey data suggesting that 40 to 50 million people were desperate for in-depth and original TV journalism. Nine months later, it averaged 10,000 viewers per hour—1.08 percent of Fox News’ audience and 3.7 percent of CNN. AJAM, built for an audience of vegetarians, is stuck with a broccoli stand in a candy shop.
The culprit isn’t Millennials, or Facebook, or analytics software like Chartbeat. The problem is our brains. The more attention-starved we feel, the more we thirst for stimuli that are familiar. We like ice cream when we’re sad, old songs when we’re tired, and easy listicles when we’re busy and ego-depleted. The Internet shorthand for this fact is “cat pictures.” Psychologists prefer the term fluency. Fluency isn’t how we think: It’s how we feel while we’re thinking. We prefer thoughts that come easily: Faces that are symmetrical, colors that are clear, and sentences with parallelisms. In this light, there are two problems with hard news: It’s hard and it’s new. (Parallelism!)

This year, the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism asked thousands of people around the world what sort of news was most important to them. The graph below shows the responses from Americans. International news crushed celebrity and “fun” news by a margin of two-to-one. Economic and political news finished even higher. (via Why Audiences Hate Hard News—And Love Pretending Otherwise - Derek Thompson - The Atlantic)

But what happens when we stop asking readers what’s important and start looking at what they actually read?

Audiences are liars, and the media organizations who listen to them without measuring them are dupes. At the Aspen Ideas Festival last year, Ehab Al Shihabi, executive director of international operations for Al Jazeera America, shared survey data suggesting that 40 to 50 million people were desperate for in-depth and original TV journalism. Nine months later, it averaged 10,000 viewers per hour—1.08 percent of Fox News’ audience and 3.7 percent of CNN. AJAM, built for an audience of vegetarians, is stuck with a broccoli stand in a candy shop.

The culprit isn’t Millennials, or Facebook, or analytics software like Chartbeat. The problem is our brains. The more attention-starved we feel, the more we thirst for stimuli that are familiar. We like ice cream when we’re sad, old songs when we’re tired, and easy listicles when we’re busy and ego-depleted. The Internet shorthand for this fact is “cat pictures.” Psychologists prefer the term fluency. Fluency isn’t how we think: It’s how we feel while we’re thinking. We prefer thoughts that come easily: Faces that are symmetrical, colors that are clear, and sentences with parallelisms. In this light, there are two problems with hard news: It’s hard and it’s new. (Parallelism!)

Nineteenth-century retailer John Wanamaker is responsible for perhaps the most repeated line in marketing: “Half the money I spend on advertising is wasted, the trouble is I don’t know which half.” Today, marketers are grappling with the Wanamaker Paradox: The more we learn which half of advertising is working, the more we realize we’re wasting way more than half. Perhaps you’re nodding your head about now. Most people you know don’t click online ads. At least, not on purpose. But now research is getting closer to quantifying exactly how few people click on Internet ads and exactly how ineffective they are. It’s not a pretty picture. (via A Dangerous Question: Does Internet Advertising Work at All? - Derek Thompson - The Atlantic)

Nineteenth-century retailer John Wanamaker is responsible for perhaps the most repeated line in marketing: “Half the money I spend on advertising is wasted, the trouble is I don’t know which half.” Today, marketers are grappling with the Wanamaker Paradox: The more we learn which half of advertising is working, the more we realize we’re wasting way more than half. Perhaps you’re nodding your head about now. Most people you know don’t click online ads. At least, not on purpose. But now research is getting closer to quantifying exactly how few people click on Internet ads and exactly how ineffective they are. It’s not a pretty picture. (via A Dangerous Question: Does Internet Advertising Work at All? - Derek Thompson - The Atlantic)