4 ms·

You are probably a middle-class caucasian male from a western country. I can make that assumption because this willingness to pay that you're talking about cann

You are probably a middle-class caucasian male from a western country. I can make that assumption because this willingness to pay that you're talking about cannot be a reality for the poor or for citizens of underdeveloped countries, or in other words ... the majority.

imgabe 11y ago
You're right. And addressing issues like poverty is one of the many better things we could be doing than trying to figure out how Buzzfeed can get paid to tell us about 35 Things Only Parapalegic Law School Students from Cincinatti Will Understand.
- icebraining 11y ago
  Even if the personal targeting in bad_user's post is uncalled for, the point is still valid: right now, ads serve as a redistribution mechanism, and pretending that Buzzfeed and the likes are the only sites that will be blocked to the lower classes in a paywall-laden web is just demagogy. In fact, Buzzfeed will probably still be available to the general public, since they already engage in "native advertising", where the content is the ad. It's sites that still maintain some editorial independence that will be most affected.
  - imgabe 11y ago
    I agree there is value in making useful information available to people who can't afford it. I don't think advertising is the only way or even the best way to make this happen. We used to consider this such a valuable endeavor that we had whole institutions dedicated to making information available for free, without ads. They were called "libraries".
    - icebraining 11y ago
      I also agree that ads aren't the only or best way to make it happen. But they are the existing way. It's well known what tends to happen when structures are eliminated with promises of better tomorrows.
      - imgabe 11y ago
        It's been "the existing way" for only 20-30 years. Before that we had newspapers, libraries, town criers, monks copying manuscripts by hand, phone trees, who knows what else. A webpage with an ad is hardly the only available means of disseminating information. There are other options even right now with donation supported sites, sites supported by sales of affiliated merchandise, manufacturer websites with product data, and so on.
        icebraining 11y ago
        "Let them eat newspapers"? We're not talking about a return to the past; we're talking about a two tier system, where the good information will be served with all the speed and amenities of the web to those who can afford it. Having other means of disseminating the information is irrelevant, because the real money will come from the paywalled sites. It's the JSTOR model, now for all the information. And what I'm saying is not "let's keep the current model"; all I want is to urge the anti-ad advocates to at least acknowledge the issue -which is real- instead of brushing it off as only affecting Buzzfeed and the likes, and to come up with a better answer than "manufacturers will still publish their product data", as if that covered the important information we're talking about.
  - 13thLetter 11y ago
    > right now, ads serve as a redistribution mechanism If you wanted to redistribute wealth to the global poor, forcing everyone (poor and not-poor alike) to download massive, useless megabytes of untargeted advertising, malware, and phishing scams is not the most efficient way to do it. This is defending the current broken and destructive ad regime on the basis of a distant third-order effect.
    - icebraining 11y ago
      What you've wrote is almost a perfect example of the Nirvana fallacy. Yes, the current ad system is inefficient, regularly disruptive and even occasionally destructive. But it's here and it's redistributing, while the proponents of alternatives don't even mention that aspect, let alone have a working solution. And it might be a "distance third-order effect" to you, but as someone who lives in a country where credit cards are rare and the average wage is under $15k/y, it's not as abstract to me.
      - 13thLetter 11y ago
        > Yes, the current ad system is inefficient, regularly disruptive and even occasionally destructive. But it's here and it's redistributing, Talk about fallacies! Based on that kind of argument, you can defend any awful, destructive policy if it benefits someone, somewhere. > as someone who lives in a country where credit cards are rare and the average wage is under $15k/y, it's not as abstract to me. I'm sorry, but I can't seem to find the contract I signed where I agreed to be tracked by giant corporations and choke all my devices to the point of nonfunctionality with malware and ads just so a stranger wouldn't have to pay for content. Maybe you have a copy?
        icebraining 11y ago
        You seem to be assuming a lot from my posts; please don't. I'm not saying we should keep the existing system, and I'm not saying you should have to accept tracking. What I'm saying is that bad_user has a point regarding redistribution, and that anti-advertising advocates should deal with it instead of whistling and pretending it'll only affect Buzzfeed, like the post I originally replied to did.
dmethvin 11y ago
...and this is the unspoken truth of advertising. There is no reason for advertisers to reach that majority who cannot or will not pay for whatever is being advertised. However the publishers resent ad blockers because they reduce the pool and that's a bad thing in a world where cost-per-impression is common, or even cost-per-click where inadvertent clicks can make money. At the bottom of it all though, there need to be enough people who actually do follow through on the call to action in order for the ads to be profitable. In casino parlance these are the "whales" who make all the freeloaders at the buffet worthwhile. In the 1990s the "whales" of the Internet were AOL users, they had that sweet combination of impulsive action and disposable income that advertisers love. I don't know who their target market is today, but it's not me.
- RUG3Y 11y ago
  I know, right? I've never in my entire life intentionally clicked on an ad, much less made a purchase decision based on one.

imgabe 11y ago

You're right. And addressing issues like poverty is one of the many better things we could be doing than trying to figure out how Buzzfeed can get paid to tell us about 35 Things Only Parapalegic Law School Students from Cincinatti Will Understand.

icebraining 11y ago
Even if the personal targeting in bad_user's post is uncalled for, the point is still valid: right now, ads serve as a redistribution mechanism, and pretending that Buzzfeed and the likes are the only sites that will be blocked to the lower classes in a paywall-laden web is just demagogy. In fact, Buzzfeed will probably still be available to the general public, since they already engage in "native advertising", where the content is the ad. It's sites that still maintain some editorial independence that will be most affected.
- imgabe 11y ago
  I agree there is value in making useful information available to people who can't afford it. I don't think advertising is the only way or even the best way to make this happen. We used to consider this such a valuable endeavor that we had whole institutions dedicated to making information available for free, without ads. They were called "libraries".
  - icebraining 11y ago
    I also agree that ads aren't the only or best way to make it happen. But they are the existing way. It's well known what tends to happen when structures are eliminated with promises of better tomorrows.
    - imgabe 11y ago
      It's been "the existing way" for only 20-30 years. Before that we had newspapers, libraries, town criers, monks copying manuscripts by hand, phone trees, who knows what else. A webpage with an ad is hardly the only available means of disseminating information. There are other options even right now with donation supported sites, sites supported by sales of affiliated merchandise, manufacturer websites with product data, and so on.
      - icebraining 11y ago
        "Let them eat newspapers"? We're not talking about a return to the past; we're talking about a two tier system, where the good information will be served with all the speed and amenities of the web to those who can afford it. Having other means of disseminating the information is irrelevant, because the real money will come from the paywalled sites. It's the JSTOR model, now for all the information. And what I'm saying is not "let's keep the current model"; all I want is to urge the anti-ad advocates to at least acknowledge the issue -which is real- instead of brushing it off as only affecting Buzzfeed and the likes, and to come up with a better answer than "manufacturers will still publish their product data", as if that covered the important information we're talking about.
- 13thLetter 11y ago
  > right now, ads serve as a redistribution mechanism If you wanted to redistribute wealth to the global poor, forcing everyone (poor and not-poor alike) to download massive, useless megabytes of untargeted advertising, malware, and phishing scams is not the most efficient way to do it. This is defending the current broken and destructive ad regime on the basis of a distant third-order effect.
  - icebraining 11y ago
    What you've wrote is almost a perfect example of the Nirvana fallacy. Yes, the current ad system is inefficient, regularly disruptive and even occasionally destructive. But it's here and it's redistributing, while the proponents of alternatives don't even mention that aspect, let alone have a working solution. And it might be a "distance third-order effect" to you, but as someone who lives in a country where credit cards are rare and the average wage is under $15k/y, it's not as abstract to me.
    - 13thLetter 11y ago
      > Yes, the current ad system is inefficient, regularly disruptive and even occasionally destructive. But it's here and it's redistributing, Talk about fallacies! Based on that kind of argument, you can defend any awful, destructive policy if it benefits someone, somewhere. > as someone who lives in a country where credit cards are rare and the average wage is under $15k/y, it's not as abstract to me. I'm sorry, but I can't seem to find the contract I signed where I agreed to be tracked by giant corporations and choke all my devices to the point of nonfunctionality with malware and ads just so a stranger wouldn't have to pay for content. Maybe you have a copy?
      - icebraining 11y ago
        You seem to be assuming a lot from my posts; please don't. I'm not saying we should keep the existing system, and I'm not saying you should have to accept tracking. What I'm saying is that bad_user has a point regarding redistribution, and that anti-advertising advocates should deal with it instead of whistling and pretending it'll only affect Buzzfeed, like the post I originally replied to did.

dmethvin 11y ago

...and this is the unspoken truth of advertising. There is no reason for advertisers to reach that majority who cannot or will not pay for whatever is being advertised. However the publishers resent ad blockers because they reduce the pool and that's a bad thing in a world where cost-per-impression is common, or even cost-per-click where inadvertent clicks can make money. At the bottom of it all though, there need to be enough people who actually do follow through on the call to action in order for the ads to be profitable. In casino parlance these are the "whales" who make all the freeloaders at the buffet worthwhile. In the 1990s the "whales" of the Internet were AOL users, they had that sweet combination of impulsive action and disposable income that advertisers love. I don't know who their target market is today, but it's not me.

RUG3Y 11y ago
I know, right? I've never in my entire life intentionally clicked on an ad, much less made a purchase decision based on one.