5 ms·

I think the idea is that if advertising on the web respected users, they wouldn't feel the need to block ads. The users have heard that too often. We're all ou

I think the idea is that if advertising on the web respected users, they wouldn't feel the need to block ads. The users have heard that too often. We're all out of trust to give. If every web user blocked all ads, content creators couldn't get any revenue and would stop making content. If every web user blocked all ads, content creators wouldn't be able to get any revenue from ads. There are other ways of getting revenue. What's the alternative? There's what @libeclipse said in his comment: if you somehow make this tech work in popular browsers, then there are people who might be willing to try it and maybe it becomes the accepted solution. Other than that? Paid content. Yes, that makes it harder for content creators to get money and harder for content consumers to get free content. So what? Are we really so convinced that everyone who creates anything deserves to be paid for it? Do we really need so much free content? More specifically, are we all so convinced of these two things that we're okay with giving up our rights on how to render web content on our own computers? 'Cause that's what it boils down to in the end.

news_to_me 10y ago
I just think it's silly to completely throw out the idea of ad-based revenue because currently the ad culture sucks. More paid content? Ok, sure. But what if we could also have ads that didn't suck? I think it's a worthy goal.
- throwaway2048 10y ago
  The nature of ads is to be hostile and misleading to the people viewing them. Their purpose is to drive demand where none previously existed, they are at odds with the user.
  - news_to_me 10y ago
    That's a simplistic viewpoint. If ads weren't useful at all, no one would click on them, or, if they did, they wouldn't buy whatever was at the other end. There is such a thing as artificially inflated demand, which can be a problem, but I don't think it's likely that all advertising falls in that bucket.
    - kwhitefoot 10y ago
      It would be interesting to have some examples of ads that you regard as not falling in that bucket.
  - beaconstudios 10y ago
    the main legitimate purpose of ads is to make people aware of products they didn't know about before. If the user actually wants that product but didn't know it existed, then the advert was a net-positive to both parties.
- CodeMage 10y ago
  Why? I really don't understand why people think that ads of all things need saving. I understand the desire to make money flow towards the content creators. I understand the desire for free content. I understand that the ads seem to "solve" both of those problems. I just don't understand why people think it's better to keep investing our time and energy into trying to save ads instead of looking for alternative solutions. So why ads?
  - news_to_me 10y ago
    For one reason, it's the system we have now. There's a lot of industry inertia that would simply be easier to keep than throw away and switch to a new system. If you want to convince everyone to switch, the question is really, "Why not just ads?", especially if it's relatively easy to fix the problems we face now. From a practical perspective, you need to convince all the stakeholders to abandon ads, which isn't easy. But yeah, personally I'd prefer a different system. I really like the idea of micropayments, but I don't know how that would look exactly.
always_good 10y ago
You are fixated on content-creation, but what about all the other types of websites? I have a collaborate writing forum for young teens which don't have credit cards. Maybe you think my forum shouldn't exist because it depends on ads, but as someone who grew up on a similar writing forum and developed my love for writing at a young age, I'd disagree.
- CodeMage 10y ago
  Excellent point! Let me first quickly explain that the only reason I appear fixated on content-creation is because the vast majority of "save the ads" crowd use the "but the content creators will stop" argument ;) The answer to your question is simple: it doesn't matter. Replace "content creator" with a more general "service provider" and my point remains exactly the same. There is no good reason why we need to defend ads, specifically, as a business model, other than "it's already in place". And while "being in place" is a rather strong force, more and more people are using ad blockers. I would consider that a pretty clear indicator that we need a better system. There's one last thing I would like to clarify about my argument: no matter what systems we have or lack, the question is always who cares for something enough to pay for all of part of it. Ads try to take that question away, but they don't -- they merely make it seem like they do. But even if we didn't have the ads, there are always ways to shift the burden of payment away from the totality of the consumers. For example, the service could be sustained through a donation drive. Wikipedia comes to mind right away, but so does the PTSA of the public school my son goes to. Another source of funding might be the service provider: there are people out there so passionate about what they do, that they'll pay the costs out of their own pockets. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying everyone should depend on altruism, but it's also an option that doesn't get brought up enough.
  - davidbanham 10y ago
    Funding a service out of donations is a pretty grinding misery, though. It takes a massive amount of work (and incidentally, advertising to donators) to pull it off.

news_to_me 10y ago

I just think it's silly to completely throw out the idea of ad-based revenue because currently the ad culture sucks. More paid content? Ok, sure. But what if we could also have ads that didn't suck? I think it's a worthy goal.

throwaway2048 10y ago
The nature of ads is to be hostile and misleading to the people viewing them. Their purpose is to drive demand where none previously existed, they are at odds with the user.
- news_to_me 10y ago
  That's a simplistic viewpoint. If ads weren't useful at all, no one would click on them, or, if they did, they wouldn't buy whatever was at the other end. There is such a thing as artificially inflated demand, which can be a problem, but I don't think it's likely that all advertising falls in that bucket.
  - kwhitefoot 10y ago
    It would be interesting to have some examples of ads that you regard as not falling in that bucket.
- beaconstudios 10y ago
  the main legitimate purpose of ads is to make people aware of products they didn't know about before. If the user actually wants that product but didn't know it existed, then the advert was a net-positive to both parties.
CodeMage 10y ago
Why? I really don't understand why people think that ads of all things need saving. I understand the desire to make money flow towards the content creators. I understand the desire for free content. I understand that the ads seem to "solve" both of those problems. I just don't understand why people think it's better to keep investing our time and energy into trying to save ads instead of looking for alternative solutions. So why ads?
- news_to_me 10y ago
  For one reason, it's the system we have now. There's a lot of industry inertia that would simply be easier to keep than throw away and switch to a new system. If you want to convince everyone to switch, the question is really, "Why not just ads?", especially if it's relatively easy to fix the problems we face now. From a practical perspective, you need to convince all the stakeholders to abandon ads, which isn't easy. But yeah, personally I'd prefer a different system. I really like the idea of micropayments, but I don't know how that would look exactly.

always_good 10y ago

You are fixated on content-creation, but what about all the other types of websites? I have a collaborate writing forum for young teens which don't have credit cards. Maybe you think my forum shouldn't exist because it depends on ads, but as someone who grew up on a similar writing forum and developed my love for writing at a young age, I'd disagree.

CodeMage 10y ago
Excellent point! Let me first quickly explain that the only reason I appear fixated on content-creation is because the vast majority of "save the ads" crowd use the "but the content creators will stop" argument ;) The answer to your question is simple: it doesn't matter. Replace "content creator" with a more general "service provider" and my point remains exactly the same. There is no good reason why we need to defend ads, specifically, as a business model, other than "it's already in place". And while "being in place" is a rather strong force, more and more people are using ad blockers. I would consider that a pretty clear indicator that we need a better system. There's one last thing I would like to clarify about my argument: no matter what systems we have or lack, the question is always who cares for something enough to pay for all of part of it. Ads try to take that question away, but they don't -- they merely make it seem like they do. But even if we didn't have the ads, there are always ways to shift the burden of payment away from the totality of the consumers. For example, the service could be sustained through a donation drive. Wikipedia comes to mind right away, but so does the PTSA of the public school my son goes to. Another source of funding might be the service provider: there are people out there so passionate about what they do, that they'll pay the costs out of their own pockets. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying everyone should depend on altruism, but it's also an option that doesn't get brought up enough.
- davidbanham 10y ago
  Funding a service out of donations is a pretty grinding misery, though. It takes a massive amount of work (and incidentally, advertising to donators) to pull it off.