4 ms·

And it has to come from the ad networks, because the infrastructure to make this work is already there - hopefully the ultimate form of this wouldn't require si

by mathw 9y ago

And it has to come from the ad networks, because the infrastructure to make this work is already there - hopefully the ultimate form of this wouldn't require site admins to really do anything special, other than twiddling a few settings in their Google advertising accounts. The real trouble being the more people who use that kind of thing, the more the value of adverts goes down...

BoiledCabbage 9y ago
> And it has to come from the ad networks That is a truth. You need to already have the infra to make this change. I think it'd be too much to both successfully grow a business and try to change browsing behavior at once. > ...The more people who use that kind of thing, the more the value of adverts goes down... Not necessarily a bad thing. If the value of adverts drops, and this is a well known alternative it provides even more incentive to move to model where there is still money to be made. Not to mention there probably is a bit of "recapture". Of people who ran ad-blockers for the experience (ie zero-revenue providers) who are willing to pay for content. Similar to people who torrented, but instead became Netflix/Hulu subscribers when it became an option.
kbob 9y ago
I'm not seeing an issue. How is it worse than ad blockers?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
pavel_lishin 9y ago
> * And it has to come from the ad networks, because the infrastructure to make this work is already there* That really chaps my ass. These are the people keep shitting in the well, then installed a pipe to inject feces directly into the well and the groundwater - and you're telling us that the only way to deliver disinfectant and filtration systems is through that pipe, and we might as well keep using their system? > The real trouble being the more people who use that kind of thing, the more the value of adverts goes down... That does become a problem if Google is the only game in town, and you're inexplicably banned from their platform, which does tend to happen.

by mathw 9y ago

BoiledCabbage 9y ago

> And it has to come from the ad networks That is a truth. You need to already have the infra to make this change. I think it'd be too much to both successfully grow a business and try to change browsing behavior at once. > ...The more people who use that kind of thing, the more the value of adverts goes down... Not necessarily a bad thing. If the value of adverts drops, and this is a well known alternative it provides even more incentive to move to model where there is still money to be made. Not to mention there probably is a bit of "recapture". Of people who ran ad-blockers for the experience (ie zero-revenue providers) who are willing to pay for content. Similar to people who torrented, but instead became Netflix/Hulu subscribers when it became an option.

kbob 9y ago

I'm not seeing an issue. How is it worse than ad blockers?

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

pavel_lishin 9y ago

> * And it has to come from the ad networks, because the infrastructure to make this work is already there* That really chaps my ass. These are the people keep shitting in the well, then installed a pipe to inject feces directly into the well and the groundwater - and you're telling us that the only way to deliver disinfectant and filtration systems is through that pipe, and we might as well keep using their system? > The real trouble being the more people who use that kind of thing, the more the value of adverts goes down... That does become a problem if Google is the only game in town, and you're inexplicably banned from their platform, which does tend to happen.