3 ms·

From my POV, it's a race to the bottom. One publisher offered video ads so other publishers felt pushed to do the same. There was a medium post here a few day

From my POV, it's a race to the bottom. One publisher offered video ads so other publishers felt pushed to do the same. There was a medium post here a few days ago about the eponymous extension "Adblock". Adblock offered advertisers a paid program ("Acceptable Ads") where their ads would be vetted and whitelisted. The blog post focused on the ethical and legal quandry of double dipping income (users and advertisers) but what you're talking about isn't unheard of. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16997272 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16997272

lakechfoma 8y ago
I get that it's a race to the bottom, but lets redefine the bottom I guess. I'm afraid that as publishers react to the public being anti ads, we'll all forget the reasons ads became such an issue. We'll get more paywalls where self regulated respectable advertising may suffice. Maybe that model won't work for some reason, I'd like to see some publishers talking about it though! It's either full on the google/fb tracking train or expensive monthly paywall.
- scottie_m 8y ago
  The thing is, a paywall isn’t going to work out for most publishers either, because they’re not worth the money. Most “content” out there is marginal at best, deceptive clickbait at worst. Putting up a paywall is more likely to just end in people calling that bluff. I for one, wouldn’t pay $20 for a month of Bloomberg, never mind $40. I won’t really miss them either. If Buzzfeed puts up a paywall... ok that’s fine, good even! Of course this assumes that people don’t just rapidly figure out ways to pirate content, and they will. Try to track me, I’ll use uMatrix. Try to paywall me, and I’ll remember how little you’re worth. The NYT and FT can paywall, and a few others are worth the money... most aren’t. How many sites would you be willing to pay for rather than just forget exist in a week? There’s always piracy lurking in the background, waiting for companies to be venal or stupid enough to make the hassle of pirating less onerous than the legal option.
  - afrnld 8y ago
    I just use Nofeenews.com anyways. They just link to alternative sources for the same stories that don’t have paywalls

lakechfoma 8y ago

I get that it's a race to the bottom, but lets redefine the bottom I guess. I'm afraid that as publishers react to the public being anti ads, we'll all forget the reasons ads became such an issue. We'll get more paywalls where self regulated respectable advertising may suffice. Maybe that model won't work for some reason, I'd like to see some publishers talking about it though! It's either full on the google/fb tracking train or expensive monthly paywall.

scottie_m 8y ago
The thing is, a paywall isn’t going to work out for most publishers either, because they’re not worth the money. Most “content” out there is marginal at best, deceptive clickbait at worst. Putting up a paywall is more likely to just end in people calling that bluff. I for one, wouldn’t pay $20 for a month of Bloomberg, never mind $40. I won’t really miss them either. If Buzzfeed puts up a paywall... ok that’s fine, good even! Of course this assumes that people don’t just rapidly figure out ways to pirate content, and they will. Try to track me, I’ll use uMatrix. Try to paywall me, and I’ll remember how little you’re worth. The NYT and FT can paywall, and a few others are worth the money... most aren’t. How many sites would you be willing to pay for rather than just forget exist in a week? There’s always piracy lurking in the background, waiting for companies to be venal or stupid enough to make the hassle of pirating less onerous than the legal option.
- afrnld 8y ago
  I just use Nofeenews.com anyways. They just link to alternative sources for the same stories that don’t have paywalls