4 ms·

Ask HN: Can this way we support publishers and readers, and also get rid of ads?

• techaddict009 11y ago
  Just found google is testing something similar: https://www.google.com/contributor/welcome/ https://www.google.com/contributor/welcome/
• bobajeff 11y ago
  The problem isn't the ads themselves. It's what they do to the experience of browsing. Increase loading times, reduce responsiveness, use up metered data (important on mobile), spy on you, install malware. There are too many bad actors out there using ads Networks for malicious things or just don't care to pay attention to the user experience. So it just makes good sense to by default turn off the features that are being misused rather than give everyone the benefit of the doubt. The solution of using micro transactions doesn't address the issue of bad actors ruining the system for everyone else. So I think it might be killed faster than ads.
  • techaddict009 11y ago
    well using this plugin there will be no ads served. So dont you think this will solve problems a lot?
    • bobajeff 11y ago
      Only if the plugin blocks ads/trackers etc. Otherwise users are not only seeing ads, getting spied on and running up their data but also paying for the privilege. So in effect then users will have another thing block or ignore.
• edwhitesell 11y ago
  For me, the problem isn't directly the ads. I started tuning them out long ago, well before the time of ad blockers. I really don't care what the ads look like. The problems are: - Some ads are very intrusive - Some ads are malicious Those are problems because the content owners are usually hands-off when it comes to displaying ads. They say things like "I can plug in this javascript from site x and I'll get paid!" Sure, you can, but if you're not curating the ads in the same way you're curating your content, something isn't going to align. People will view content (and advertising) if it's valuable to them. Interesting, engaging, technically relevant, etc. That should apply to everything on your page, including ads.
  • techaddict009 11y ago
    Yeah but dont you think solution I have suggested will solve that problem?
    • edwhitesell 11y ago
      If I'm willing to pay for content, why wouldn't I just pay the content owner directly? I already pay for WSJ, NYTimes and others. There could be an opportunity to enable content owners to more easily accept payments, but is the opportunity large enough (and the costs to the content owner low enough) to justify it? What's the model look like for that? Are there enough content owners/creators that would pay (or revenue share) someone else to monitize their content in a more meaningful way for users? Let's say "Blogger XYZ" decides to charge $1USD per article (likely a VERY high number). Is he/she going to give up 30% to someone else to handle the payment/settlement? Don't companies like Wordpress already have plug-ins for PayPal or Stripe to accept payments too?
• deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
• gradschool 11y ago
  I think this is a great idea and I agree with you that it eliminates the problems mentioned in other comments. I like it even better than whatever google is probably doing unless google is making it possible for people to use theirs without signing up for a google account. (I haven't looked into it but I'd be astonished if that were the case.) Contrary to another comment, paying a lump sum in one place would seem clearly more convenient to me than paying individual fees to every web site I visit, especially if I visit them infrequently or just once. Furthermore, I don't think it needs a revolution to get this going. You could start small by offering it to web publishers in addition to their existing ad revenue streams. The only thing that would deter me from using this plugin would be the privacy issue. Even though this would be the simplest way to implement it, I don't want a cookie that uniquely identifies me to every web site so that you the plugin developer know which account to debit. Maybe some smart person could figure out a better solution.