3 ms·

Actual counter-point: blocking all ads is shortsighted. As more and more people do it, the sites you are currently blocking from showing you ads will have to sw

Actual counter-point: blocking all ads is shortsighted. As more and more people do it, the sites you are currently blocking from showing you ads will have to switch to a paid model, with many probably failing. Only a select few news sources will survive. Local news in non-metropolitan areas will be even worse than it is now. People will start consuming news exclusively from the one or two (maximum) sources they pay for, whereas now they probably read at least one article from 50+ sources every month. Elections will happen, but very few people will actually have enough information. All political oversight will seize, because actual behaviour is no longer tied to re-election. But, at least, most politicians will have very nice names. Alternative scenario: smart blocking: start with allowing all, then blacklist individual ads based on the publisher, content/behaviour of the ad, and reputation of the ad network. That would incentive ads to actually get better.

pfraze 9y ago
I'm glad you replied; I'm interested in this debate. I agree that content monetization is an important problem that ought to be solved in order to maintain quality of information. I disagree that current advertising models have elevated the quality of content. Fake news websites (literally - a made-up .coms that have BS stories, the equivalent of tabloids) exist specifically because advertising monetizes clicks/eyeballs, and so clickbait is the optimal strategy. I disagree that moderating ads will produce better ads, because I believe ads run counter to a well-functioning information system. An example: HN is an information system that's designed to put high quality links in front of the user. A paid placement makes it possible to skip the votes mechanism, thereby skipping the system's regulatory structure. If your link deserves to be at the top, it will get there the same way all other links do. I disagree that advertising or paywall are the only two options, though I will concede those are the only two that have happened so far.

pfraze 9y ago

I'm glad you replied; I'm interested in this debate. I agree that content monetization is an important problem that ought to be solved in order to maintain quality of information. I disagree that current advertising models have elevated the quality of content. Fake news websites (literally - a made-up .coms that have BS stories, the equivalent of tabloids) exist specifically because advertising monetizes clicks/eyeballs, and so clickbait is the optimal strategy. I disagree that moderating ads will produce better ads, because I believe ads run counter to a well-functioning information system. An example: HN is an information system that's designed to put high quality links in front of the user. A paid placement makes it possible to skip the votes mechanism, thereby skipping the system's regulatory structure. If your link deserves to be at the top, it will get there the same way all other links do. I disagree that advertising or paywall are the only two options, though I will concede those are the only two that have happened so far.