For some reason this seems to be the go-to "show 'em" methodology. I think people, in general, understand what slower means.
I mean this is cute but I think this might be the fourth or fifth implementation I've seen and they all have better likelihood of just annoying someone instead of educating them.
I realize a standardized alert message delivered via JS doesn't have the same "share-able" impact, but it's probably more effective overall.
I'm imagining Wikipedia's fundraising drives and whether they'd do as well if they just blurred out a large portion of every article to raise awareness versus a prominent message.
You're asking about the efficacy of passive messaging - I don't think it would work if you asked people. Likewise, I think simply doing it is more likely to annoy people than incite passion.
Visibility is the issue, not understanding the problem. I think the message of "the internet could be slower without net neutrality" is the one that needs to be delivered. People generally know what "slower" means.
As I mentioned, a standardized message would probably be more effective, but it's also not something that would be particularly exciting to share on, say, Hacker News.
I daresay annoying people is the whole point. Combine that with the logo example given upthread, and you've got a very effective campaign going on. What I see happening:
"Why do I keep getting this bloody message with Comcast's logo on it every time I hit random websites? readreadread Fucking Comcast at it again.."
I mean this is cute but I think this might be the fourth or fifth implementation I've seen and they all have better likelihood of just annoying someone instead of educating them.
I realize a standardized alert message delivered via JS doesn't have the same "share-able" impact, but it's probably more effective overall.
I'm imagining Wikipedia's fundraising drives and whether they'd do as well if they just blurred out a large portion of every article to raise awareness versus a prominent message.