4 ms·

So this would again hurt the little guys (blogs, forums, smaller sites managed by 1 or 2 people) who don't have the capacity to find advertisers and curate ads,

So this would again hurt the little guys (blogs, forums, smaller sites managed by 1 or 2 people) who don't have the capacity to find advertisers and curate ads, and for this reason, have to use an ad network. The big sites, facebook and co. can easily do some curation and find advertisers, so as it was mentioned before these changes would only eliminate the small players while further concentrating the web into the hands of the big guys.

acdha 8y ago
It already does. This would increase the incentive not to switch to some claiming to offer slightly higher payouts and hope that they’re not cutting corners.
Kalium 8y ago
If your question is "Are we as a society willing to sacrifice the income of some small sites to keep users from being infected and having their privacy invaded?", then you may wish to contemplate the possibility that a lot of people might just say "Yes".
- dmortin 8y ago
  No, the question is: do we want more and more content concentrated into the hands of big players, eliminating little, independent publishers? Do we want this? If the answer is no then there must be a feasible, scalable alternative for small players before we eliminate the current ad based model, otherwise the little guys will die and all we have will be huge media sites pushing their own agendas without small, independent publishers having a chance of standing up to them. That is the dilemma.
  - Kalium 8y ago
    > No, the question is: do we want more and more content concentrated into the hands of big players, eliminating little, independent publishers? Do we want this? Herein lies the catch: you have correctly and properly identified a potential side-effect. The question, I think, is this: how many users and how much privacy are we willing to sacrifice for this precious, wonderful, beloved, amazing side-effect? I know my answer, and I see no dilemma at all. The horrific outcome you so rightly point to is not an ideal outcome, in isolation. At the same time, there's never a guarantee that there must be some convenient alternative. The wish for a thing does not conjure it into being, or even prove that it is possible. And in this case, some might decide that our beloved side-effect isn't as important as some other things. Though I understand if some prefer to see the security and privacy of users as something to be traded off against for financial convenience.
    - dmortin 8y ago
      The danger of possible outlets for alternative voices controlled more and more by big corporations is at least as bad as the privacy implications. So there must be a tradeoff if we wan't privacy, but we also want to have publishing outlets independent of big corporations. There is currently no perfect solution where we can have total privacy and also little publishers can sustain themselves. I'm saying that we must find a balance where we have some of both. Having 100% of one while giving up the other is not the answer.
      - Kalium 8y ago
        > The danger of possible outlets for alternative voices controlled more and more by big corporations is at least as bad as the privacy implications. I understand why you feel that way. A diversity of voices is critically important for our society! These are the people who hold the powerful to account, who give voice to the voiceless. Their continued existence, as a group, are essential to a functioning modern democracy. We need to have them. You are absolutely, completely right about their importance! > So there must be a tradeoff if we wan't privacy, but we also want to have publishing outlets independent of big corporations. There is currently no perfect solution where we can have total privacy and also little publishers can sustain themselves. I understand why you believe this. At the same time, it strikes me as perhaps excessively entrenched in extant business models and takes on faith that there can be no other approaches. Right now, I think you will find that a substantial portion of the public agrees with you. A balance, a set of tradeoffs, around privacy and online advertising can and must be found. The popular balance is likely to be the one of privacy first, and advertising just has to suck it up. Which, while a balance, is clearly not the one you want. > Having 100% of one while giving up the other is not the answer. I understand why you feel this way. Having a diversity of voices, large and small, independent and otherwise is very important! It's worth bearing in mind that not everyone is likely to want to be required to surrender their personal privacy for your notion of viewpoint diversity in publishers. After all, whatever balance is struck will apply to large corporations just as readily as small, scrappy, alternative, independent voices. It's definitely worth considering that alternatives that do not set up a conflict between user privacy and revenue may be possible. There is genuine innovation going on in this area, as well as age-old subscription models - and people like me can and do have subscriptions. I, personally, maintain several. As for those who don't adapt... well. My heart goes out to them. But my wallet does not.

acdha 8y ago

It already does. This would increase the incentive not to switch to some claiming to offer slightly higher payouts and hope that they’re not cutting corners.

Kalium 8y ago

If your question is "Are we as a society willing to sacrifice the income of some small sites to keep users from being infected and having their privacy invaded?", then you may wish to contemplate the possibility that a lot of people might just say "Yes".

dmortin 8y ago
No, the question is: do we want more and more content concentrated into the hands of big players, eliminating little, independent publishers? Do we want this? If the answer is no then there must be a feasible, scalable alternative for small players before we eliminate the current ad based model, otherwise the little guys will die and all we have will be huge media sites pushing their own agendas without small, independent publishers having a chance of standing up to them. That is the dilemma.
- Kalium 8y ago
  > No, the question is: do we want more and more content concentrated into the hands of big players, eliminating little, independent publishers? Do we want this? Herein lies the catch: you have correctly and properly identified a potential side-effect. The question, I think, is this: how many users and how much privacy are we willing to sacrifice for this precious, wonderful, beloved, amazing side-effect? I know my answer, and I see no dilemma at all. The horrific outcome you so rightly point to is not an ideal outcome, in isolation. At the same time, there's never a guarantee that there must be some convenient alternative. The wish for a thing does not conjure it into being, or even prove that it is possible. And in this case, some might decide that our beloved side-effect isn't as important as some other things. Though I understand if some prefer to see the security and privacy of users as something to be traded off against for financial convenience.
  - dmortin 8y ago
    The danger of possible outlets for alternative voices controlled more and more by big corporations is at least as bad as the privacy implications. So there must be a tradeoff if we wan't privacy, but we also want to have publishing outlets independent of big corporations. There is currently no perfect solution where we can have total privacy and also little publishers can sustain themselves. I'm saying that we must find a balance where we have some of both. Having 100% of one while giving up the other is not the answer.
    - Kalium 8y ago
      > The danger of possible outlets for alternative voices controlled more and more by big corporations is at least as bad as the privacy implications. I understand why you feel that way. A diversity of voices is critically important for our society! These are the people who hold the powerful to account, who give voice to the voiceless. Their continued existence, as a group, are essential to a functioning modern democracy. We need to have them. You are absolutely, completely right about their importance! > So there must be a tradeoff if we wan't privacy, but we also want to have publishing outlets independent of big corporations. There is currently no perfect solution where we can have total privacy and also little publishers can sustain themselves. I understand why you believe this. At the same time, it strikes me as perhaps excessively entrenched in extant business models and takes on faith that there can be no other approaches. Right now, I think you will find that a substantial portion of the public agrees with you. A balance, a set of tradeoffs, around privacy and online advertising can and must be found. The popular balance is likely to be the one of privacy first, and advertising just has to suck it up. Which, while a balance, is clearly not the one you want. > Having 100% of one while giving up the other is not the answer. I understand why you feel this way. Having a diversity of voices, large and small, independent and otherwise is very important! It's worth bearing in mind that not everyone is likely to want to be required to surrender their personal privacy for your notion of viewpoint diversity in publishers. After all, whatever balance is struck will apply to large corporations just as readily as small, scrappy, alternative, independent voices. It's definitely worth considering that alternatives that do not set up a conflict between user privacy and revenue may be possible. There is genuine innovation going on in this area, as well as age-old subscription models - and people like me can and do have subscriptions. I, personally, maintain several. As for those who don't adapt... well. My heart goes out to them. But my wallet does not.