3 ms·

There are obviously some serious problems with ad-driven businesses on the net. But they have also done a lot to put technology in the hands of poor people. Any

There are obviously some serious problems with ad-driven businesses on the net. But they have also done a lot to put technology in the hands of poor people. Any plans to replace them with paid-only services need to figure out some way to make them available to people on very limited incomes.

nine_k 8y ago
A few examples of what you are describing would be very welcome.
- anonytrary 8y ago
  IIRC, Facebook, Twitter and Gmail don't make you pay to sign up, meaning people who can't afford to pay end up enjoying those services for "free". (At least, I think that's what parent was getting at, not saying I super agree with it).
TeMPOraL 8y ago
That's literally the only redeeming aspect of ad-driven model I'm aware of. It's good you point this out, personally I don't have good alternatives if one were to just burn advertising industry to the ground (something I fantasize about). Still, advertising is a Red Queen's race; once a party achieves some advancement (like animated ads, video ads, tracking, etc.), everyone else has to follow suit. The relative situation of player is ultimately unchanged, but the baseline is more user-hostile. So there's plenty of possibility for regulators to simply roll adtech back to 1990s, and advertisers would still make their money.
krageon 8y ago
You would have to be at the extreme bottom end of the scale to not be able to afford the cost of hosting some content on the internet (maybe 3 euros per month?). It is something you could find space for in your budget unless you are literally starving and have absolutely 0 space in your budget for anything. If that were the case, I doubt this hypothetical person would be spending a lot of time on the internet in the first place. And let's not forget these ads are all clamoring to make people spend money on things they "didn't know they needed", so it's not like they're materially doing someone who is very badly off any favours.

nine_k 8y ago

A few examples of what you are describing would be very welcome.

anonytrary 8y ago
IIRC, Facebook, Twitter and Gmail don't make you pay to sign up, meaning people who can't afford to pay end up enjoying those services for "free". (At least, I think that's what parent was getting at, not saying I super agree with it).

TeMPOraL 8y ago

That's literally the only redeeming aspect of ad-driven model I'm aware of. It's good you point this out, personally I don't have good alternatives if one were to just burn advertising industry to the ground (something I fantasize about). Still, advertising is a Red Queen's race; once a party achieves some advancement (like animated ads, video ads, tracking, etc.), everyone else has to follow suit. The relative situation of player is ultimately unchanged, but the baseline is more user-hostile. So there's plenty of possibility for regulators to simply roll adtech back to 1990s, and advertisers would still make their money.

krageon 8y ago

You would have to be at the extreme bottom end of the scale to not be able to afford the cost of hosting some content on the internet (maybe 3 euros per month?). It is something you could find space for in your budget unless you are literally starving and have absolutely 0 space in your budget for anything. If that were the case, I doubt this hypothetical person would be spending a lot of time on the internet in the first place. And let's not forget these ads are all clamoring to make people spend money on things they "didn't know they needed", so it's not like they're materially doing someone who is very badly off any favours.