On 9 December 2011 14:58, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
I don't accept your false equivalence between Harvard/Science Po and McDonalds, nor do I believe you misunderstood my point: that advertising is commonly rejected for its potential for various harms, while even those who object to this banner have not rationally presented any possible harm that could result.
It increases acceptance of advertising logos at the top of the page.
Getting your logo at the top of a top-5 website? That's *rather* valuable.
Note that this was one of the big objections to the Virgin Unite logo in the fundraiser five years ago. Logo = advertising, however much equivocation one applies to the point.
- d.