5 ms·

They can still make money off ad revenue, they'll just have to think of a way to do it without compromising the user's privacy.

wadkar 9y ago
Good point, the ads could be content driven rather than user profile driven.
- openasocket 9y ago
  I really really think this is the way to go. When I'm on programming websites I want ads from cloud providers, and when I'm wood working websites I want ads for belt sanders. I feel like it makes more sense to display ads that match up with the content of the web page anyway, it means the viewer might be in a more receptive mood for that type of product. Not to mention it avoids the entire issue of user privacy and the difficulty of tracking users. It's also how all advertising has been done since the beginning of time, and I don't see why the Internet has to be such a special case.
  - mark-r 9y ago
    The internet was a special case simply because it made it possible to do a better job of predicting your interests. At that point it became an arms race because you didn't want to spend on ads that were less effective than your competitor's. If we went back to content-based advertising those ad dollars wouldn't disappear, the distribution would just change.
- ThorAndZeus 9y ago
  Very good point indeed. And that is how the publishing industry used to do with segmented magazines. Each publication built their own reader's profile and ad agencies would chose a publication over another based on who they would like to target. That is a much more ethical approach, in my opinion.
  - grigjd3 9y ago
    This still happens with online ads, but supply quality matters. Location of an ad, quality of the domain (ESPN is very good value). But roughly 100 junk auctions come in (no bidder) for every ok auction (single bid reduces to floor) and just a tenth of that represents a good location (bids drive the price above the floor). So yes, people still hit up espn's college football pages with truck ads and the Washington post got targeted for ads by the Bahraini embassy trying to drum up support during their spat with Saudi Arabia.
JadeNB 9y ago
> They can still make money off ad revenue, they'll just have to think of a way to do it without compromising the user's privacy. Look, let's not get drastic. Obviously the first step is to whine about it, and behave as if the user's respect for privacy is tantamount to theft. Ooh, maybe try getting some laws passed criminalising ad blocking! (I am not sure whether that is implausibly ridiculous or a simple description of facts.)
ucaetano 9y ago
Sure, but they would only make a fraction of what they make today, most creators would go out of business and most free services would be shut down.
- nradov 9y ago
  That would be an acceptable outcome.
  - ucaetano 9y ago
    Reduced economic activity, increased unemployment and poverty is for you an acceptable outcome so that you personally don't have to see ads? Wow...
    - AlexandrB 9y ago
      > Reduced economic activity, increased unemployment and poverty "Won't someone PLEASE think of the children!!!!" There are already non-ad-supported funding alternatives for small creators (like Patreon). Maybe the loss of an ad-supported web would finally create sufficient interest in development of micropayment and microfunding services to help the rest. Edit: and maybe we can finally rid the web of clickbait and Taboola-style garbage content.
      - ucaetano 9y ago
        It wouldn't work. Ads work because you're trading something that is worth more to the publisher than to you. Let's imagine a utility currency called bananas. A piece of your attention is worth 0 bananas to you. But it is worth 10 bananas to a publisher. The cost of creating and serving you a piece of content is 5 bananas to the publisher, and the value of it to you is 2 bananas. If there were no ads, you'd be willing to pay 2 bananas to the publisher, which would not cover the cost. Therefore, the publisher and content creators would go out of business. You wouldn't be willing to pay the full cost (5 bananas), because the content isn't worth that much to you. Outome: You: 0 bananas Publisher: 0 bananas By seeing the ad, you generate 10 bananas of value to the publisher and content creator, while you get 2 bananas of value by receiving the content. Outcome: You: 2 bananas Publisher: 10 bananas Direct funding will never fully replace ad revenue.

wadkar 9y ago

Good point, the ads could be content driven rather than user profile driven.

openasocket 9y ago
I really really think this is the way to go. When I'm on programming websites I want ads from cloud providers, and when I'm wood working websites I want ads for belt sanders. I feel like it makes more sense to display ads that match up with the content of the web page anyway, it means the viewer might be in a more receptive mood for that type of product. Not to mention it avoids the entire issue of user privacy and the difficulty of tracking users. It's also how all advertising has been done since the beginning of time, and I don't see why the Internet has to be such a special case.
- mark-r 9y ago
  The internet was a special case simply because it made it possible to do a better job of predicting your interests. At that point it became an arms race because you didn't want to spend on ads that were less effective than your competitor's. If we went back to content-based advertising those ad dollars wouldn't disappear, the distribution would just change.
ThorAndZeus 9y ago
Very good point indeed. And that is how the publishing industry used to do with segmented magazines. Each publication built their own reader's profile and ad agencies would chose a publication over another based on who they would like to target. That is a much more ethical approach, in my opinion.
- grigjd3 9y ago
  This still happens with online ads, but supply quality matters. Location of an ad, quality of the domain (ESPN is very good value). But roughly 100 junk auctions come in (no bidder) for every ok auction (single bid reduces to floor) and just a tenth of that represents a good location (bids drive the price above the floor). So yes, people still hit up espn's college football pages with truck ads and the Washington post got targeted for ads by the Bahraini embassy trying to drum up support during their spat with Saudi Arabia.

JadeNB 9y ago

> They can still make money off ad revenue, they'll just have to think of a way to do it without compromising the user's privacy. Look, let's not get drastic. Obviously the first step is to whine about it, and behave as if the user's respect for privacy is tantamount to theft. Ooh, maybe try getting some laws passed criminalising ad blocking! (I am not sure whether that is implausibly ridiculous or a simple description of facts.)

ucaetano 9y ago

Sure, but they would only make a fraction of what they make today, most creators would go out of business and most free services would be shut down.

nradov 9y ago
That would be an acceptable outcome.
- ucaetano 9y ago
  Reduced economic activity, increased unemployment and poverty is for you an acceptable outcome so that you personally don't have to see ads? Wow...
  - AlexandrB 9y ago
    > Reduced economic activity, increased unemployment and poverty "Won't someone PLEASE think of the children!!!!" There are already non-ad-supported funding alternatives for small creators (like Patreon). Maybe the loss of an ad-supported web would finally create sufficient interest in development of micropayment and microfunding services to help the rest. Edit: and maybe we can finally rid the web of clickbait and Taboola-style garbage content.
    - ucaetano 9y ago
      It wouldn't work. Ads work because you're trading something that is worth more to the publisher than to you. Let's imagine a utility currency called bananas. A piece of your attention is worth 0 bananas to you. But it is worth 10 bananas to a publisher. The cost of creating and serving you a piece of content is 5 bananas to the publisher, and the value of it to you is 2 bananas. If there were no ads, you'd be willing to pay 2 bananas to the publisher, which would not cover the cost. Therefore, the publisher and content creators would go out of business. You wouldn't be willing to pay the full cost (5 bananas), because the content isn't worth that much to you. Outome: You: 0 bananas Publisher: 0 bananas By seeing the ad, you generate 10 bananas of value to the publisher and content creator, while you get 2 bananas of value by receiving the content. Outcome: You: 2 bananas Publisher: 10 bananas Direct funding will never fully replace ad revenue.