3 ms·

>According to the Financial Times, Google will allow publishers what it’s calling “Funding Choices.” The publisher could charge the consumer a set price per pag

>According to the Financial Times, Google will allow publishers what it’s calling “Funding Choices.” The publisher could charge the consumer a set price per page view to use third-party sites that block all advertising. Google would do the tracking of how many pages users view, and then charge them. Users could then “white list” particular sites, allowing ads to be shown on them and removing the charge. If users decided to pay to block ads, Google would receive a portion of that payment, sharing it with the publisher. Pay for use ad-blocking is exactly what I want. Did you hear me? Exactly. I don't want to manage a zillion news subscriptions at $15+ a pop. I don't want to get nagged to turn off my ad blocker. I want a reasonable amount of money to to spent towards the people making the content that I'm vaguely interested in because other people on Hacker News are interested in it too. I've already solved the problem of content I really care about, I just buy a darned subscription. This is a huge market opportunity and I'm just absolutely silly with glee that Google finally decided to jump on it. Because only Google has the scale to make something like this work. Finally I'm going to see the end of mob rule and the establishment of law and order in web advertising. Couldn't have happened fast enough for me. Please please, just charge me for the content I consume. Why did it take the industry so long to figure this out?

throwaway2048 9y ago
Google contributor (their implementation of this idea) only kicks in if ad sellers don't outbid you for that slot. Its a hopelessly google-myopic idea.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- vinceguidry 9y ago
  Well, if I can install a secondary ad-blocker to block those ads, I'd be fine with it. The market will eventually settle around a standard rate for a piece of content and then the world can finally know the real price for ads without all the perverse incentives.
azakai 9y ago
> I'm just absolutely silly with glee that Google finally decided to jump on it. There is no "finally" here - this isn't new. Google Contributor is from 2014 [1]. Google and other companies have tried this idea many times already. It's true that people like you exist, but there haven't been enough to make this viable. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Contributor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Contributor
- vinceguidry 9y ago
  Nobody cares because it's not a real solution. Making content sites buy into it means only 10% of the ads I see might get mitigated. Everybody else's solution has the same problem. It needs to be universal to be of any use to the end user. Otherwise it's only of slight use to Google, marginal use to content creators, and no use at all to consumers. That's what I'm hoping for from the new content blockers. A way to force a new order on the content world.
- Dylan16807 9y ago
  Contributor was extremely unreliable in multiple ways. I want something that unconditionally blocks the worse kinds of ads, and that doesn't give more money to sites just because they have more inactive ad rectangles.

throwaway2048 9y ago

Google contributor (their implementation of this idea) only kicks in if ad sellers don't outbid you for that slot. Its a hopelessly google-myopic idea.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
vinceguidry 9y ago
Well, if I can install a secondary ad-blocker to block those ads, I'd be fine with it. The market will eventually settle around a standard rate for a piece of content and then the world can finally know the real price for ads without all the perverse incentives.

azakai 9y ago

> I'm just absolutely silly with glee that Google finally decided to jump on it. There is no "finally" here - this isn't new. Google Contributor is from 2014 [1]. Google and other companies have tried this idea many times already. It's true that people like you exist, but there haven't been enough to make this viable. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Contributor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Contributor

vinceguidry 9y ago
Nobody cares because it's not a real solution. Making content sites buy into it means only 10% of the ads I see might get mitigated. Everybody else's solution has the same problem. It needs to be universal to be of any use to the end user. Otherwise it's only of slight use to Google, marginal use to content creators, and no use at all to consumers. That's what I'm hoping for from the new content blockers. A way to force a new order on the content world.
Dylan16807 9y ago
Contributor was extremely unreliable in multiple ways. I want something that unconditionally blocks the worse kinds of ads, and that doesn't give more money to sites just because they have more inactive ad rectangles.