10 ms·

Ad companies got caught putting their hand in the cookie jar and people have had enough. There's nothing wrong with an ad supported web, but it got abused, wit

Ad companies got caught putting their hand in the cookie jar and people have had enough. There's nothing wrong with an ad supported web, but it got abused, with tracking going too far and ad companies constantly trying to defeat privacy-protecting features. They have no one to blame but themselves.

baal80spam 8y ago
> There's nothing wrong with an ad supported web I very much disagree with this statement. I simply can't stand ads in my internet and uBlock Origin is the first thing I install in a fresh browser. I can't fathom browsing the web without it anymore.
- geocar 8y ago
  Who do you think should sponsor the creation of arts and the publication of news? I'd be okay with increasing taxes to cover it, or using a UK-style TV license (Internet Publishing License anyone?) and requiring people seek "Internet commissioners" like we have for Television[1], [2]. [1]: http://www.pbs.org/about/producing-pbs/proposal-process/ http://www.pbs.org/about/producing-pbs/proposal-process/ [2]: https://www.bbc.co.uk/commissioning https://www.bbc.co.uk/commissioning Another option is micropayments, but I worry bugs and fraud would then steal consumers' dollars instead of Advertisers'.
  - austhrow743 8y ago
    The consumer.
  - Hoasi 8y ago
    > Who do you think should sponsor the creation of arts and the publication of news? Direct support from the public would make sense, this is already at work, to some extent. The problem with this is that people are already so used to free that it may be difficult to implement. A license system would be a good idea. It is still far off, but authors associations are working on this in some countries.
    - goldfeld 8y ago
      Maybe we need arts and journalism to step up the game again, so good content is missed from the mainstream needing to be supported directly. Maybe most current art and journalism online won't be missed at all.
      - Hoasi 8y ago
        > Maybe most current art and journalism online won't be missed at all. Likely they wouldn't be missed. Perhaps we would also realize that enabling everyone to become a publisher was a mistake.
  - the8472 8y ago
    > a UK-style TV license (Internet Publishing License anyone?) Germany sort of does that already. From 2006 to 2012 internet-connected devices were considered broadcast receivers for the purpose of the broadcast fees. Since 2012 the fee was simplified to a general per-household broadcast fee which reduced the fairly data collection the agency had to do to know who had which kind receiver. The internet presence of the public-service broadcasters is also financed through those fees.
  - lkrubner 8y ago
    "Who do you think should sponsor the creation of arts and the publication of news?" The government is the obvious choice. The USA already has the National Endowment for the Arts, which is a good start but it needs vastly more money. The important thing is that the NEA has none of the corrupting biases that afflict companies such as Google and Facebook. Most Western countries have some equivalent for the NEA.
    - mythrwy 8y ago
      You don't see any conflict of interest with the government being a main sponsor of publication of news?
      - lkrubner 8y ago
        Do you see any conflict of interest between the government appointing judges who will then, at some point during their career, probably hear civil lawsuits against the government? The independence of the judiciary developed throughout the 1500s and 1600s and then finally, in Britain, was consolidated into a formal principle with the Act Of Settlement of 1706. And since that time, the principle of independent appointees of the government carrying out government functions is an idea that has spread to other areas of government. We can certainly put in place guarantees of an independent NEA.
        votepaunchy 8y ago
        Have you considered that an independent judiciary has been aided by an independent media? Who will watch the watchers and all.
        mythrwy 8y ago
        To me, what you are saying sounds more akin to government mandated attorneys for litigants in civil suits though, not judges. And yes, I would see that being an issue.
  - starbeast 8y ago
    Micropayments ideally need some kind of prepay token system similar to phone credit, so you can buy a certain amount to then spend in small increments.
  - akvadrako 8y ago
    If you want art and news then you should support it with your wallet, perhaps as donations. Other people may do the same.
  - mlthoughts2018 8y ago
    Why do we need a funding model for arts or news publication? For example, most of the artistic content I consume (aside from cinema) originates from people who self-publish online (blogs, articles, podcasts) and do not involve advertising nor ask for donations in the delivery of the content. Those people like creating and delivering content to others for free. They are happy to lose their own money in exchange for the product they like (an audience consuming their content). Just like I am happy to lose money to reserve a spot in my recreational basketball league. I don’t also let tennis shoe brands bid on the logo of the t-shirt I’ll wear. I think the problem is that we have this idea that someone should be paid for content. But I don’t agree. If they want to be paid for it, that’s totally fine too and they can charge a paywall, ask for donations, or attach ads, etc. However, plenty of other people write better stories, give away better paintings, generate better games or videos, share better poems or summaries of world news or published research or opinion articles — all without expecting any type of payment or earnings to come from their efforts or costs to make and distribute it. The lone aspect of this I think might not be fully sustained just as people’s voluntary recreational pursuits is the upfront capital required to fund some types of investigative journalism and provide legal protection to journalists. That part makes sense to me as a subscription cost for consuming from centralized news organizations, and if those orgs run out of money, it’s a reflection that society doesn’t value the journalism compared with recreational journalists happy to generate the content without compensation. I personally want to pay so that journalism can be thoroughly investigative and not captured by bad state actors or bad corporate actors. But that’s just my opinion... one that most humans in my country don’t seem to share, resulting in market conditions where for-pay journalism can only be sustained by a very small number of groups.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - bobajeff 8y ago
      This is my thought as well. Content creation is a passion industry so creators should be prepared for making less than people in other industries. Maybe creators should be more valued by society. If that is the case giving up our attention and privacy for free content is not the best way for a society to support them.
- orev 8y ago
  The point is that the reason you feel the need to immediately block ads is because of how they have been abused and pushed to further and further absurdity over the years.
  - akvadrako 8y ago
    That may be the point, but it's wrong. Advertising is manipulative and causes people to make bad decisions. It shouldn't be allowed at all.
    - matt4077 8y ago
      Advertisement is a required feature of a market-based economy, because it (also) informes consumers of the choices available. Without ads, the chances of breaking into an established market are extremely low.
    - H1Supreme 8y ago
      > Advertising is manipulative and causes people to make bad decisions. Not all advertising is some evil plot to brainwash the public. At it's core, it's a way to let the public know about your product. In the correct context, it's beneficial to the consumer. My Grandpa used to subscribe to Hemmings Motor News. It's a magazine that is focused on restoring vintage cars. It has regular ads, and a pretty large classified section. He used that magazine, including the ads, as a resource for vehicle restoration. Ads selling parts for 1940's Chevy pickup trucks in a section of a magazine specifically catering to that audience make sense. They're beneficial to people in the market for those products. I agree that web sites or real sites (eg. Times Square) that simply bombard you with anything and everything are awful. But, you can't put all advertising under one umbrella.
    - systematical 8y ago
      So spend tons of time and money building a startup, but don't advertise it...got it. Sound economics.
    - ElFitz 8y ago
      > Advertising is manipulative and causes people to make bad decisions. So do a lot of unasked opinions, especially on the internet (oh the irony). They're somehow still allowed to have and share them.
- Angostura 8y ago
  And I don't like paying to watch films. Neither really address the original statement
- kodablah 8y ago
  I don't see how what you personally can't stand has anything to do with there being nothing wrong with it existing. It's like me saying I very much disagree with a statement saying there's nothing wrong with a beet-supported farm. Maybe there is something wrong with an ad supported web, but a better argument can be made.
- systematical 8y ago
  I have no problem with reasonable ads as a means of compensating a website for free content, but the free market once again went too far here. There is a sense of entitlement that just gets under my skin when people think they can just have stuff for free.
amelius 8y ago
> There's nothing wrong with an ad supported web Keep in mind that ads are a very limited monetization scheme. For example, you can't even increase the price of your content and set it at a desired value.
- spullara 8y ago
  That is basically how advertising works. You set the price and people pay to be next to the content. If you don't get the price you want, don't share the content. For people blindly putting a javascript tag on their page for google ads I would agree but you can bet that places like Techmeme and DaringFireball set their price.
  - amelius 8y ago
    Yes, but it's still very limited. The price point where nobody will want to advertise is pretty low (I'm guessing). There's no way to escape that, and basically your only option is to change the entire monetization scheme.

baal80spam 8y ago

> There's nothing wrong with an ad supported web I very much disagree with this statement. I simply can't stand ads in my internet and uBlock Origin is the first thing I install in a fresh browser. I can't fathom browsing the web without it anymore.

geocar 8y ago
Who do you think should sponsor the creation of arts and the publication of news? I'd be okay with increasing taxes to cover it, or using a UK-style TV license (Internet Publishing License anyone?) and requiring people seek "Internet commissioners" like we have for Television[1], [2]. [1]: http://www.pbs.org/about/producing-pbs/proposal-process/ http://www.pbs.org/about/producing-pbs/proposal-process/ [2]: https://www.bbc.co.uk/commissioning https://www.bbc.co.uk/commissioning Another option is micropayments, but I worry bugs and fraud would then steal consumers' dollars instead of Advertisers'.
- austhrow743 8y ago
  The consumer.
- Hoasi 8y ago
  > Who do you think should sponsor the creation of arts and the publication of news? Direct support from the public would make sense, this is already at work, to some extent. The problem with this is that people are already so used to free that it may be difficult to implement. A license system would be a good idea. It is still far off, but authors associations are working on this in some countries.
  - goldfeld 8y ago
    Maybe we need arts and journalism to step up the game again, so good content is missed from the mainstream needing to be supported directly. Maybe most current art and journalism online won't be missed at all.
    - Hoasi 8y ago
      > Maybe most current art and journalism online won't be missed at all. Likely they wouldn't be missed. Perhaps we would also realize that enabling everyone to become a publisher was a mistake.
- the8472 8y ago
  > a UK-style TV license (Internet Publishing License anyone?) Germany sort of does that already. From 2006 to 2012 internet-connected devices were considered broadcast receivers for the purpose of the broadcast fees. Since 2012 the fee was simplified to a general per-household broadcast fee which reduced the fairly data collection the agency had to do to know who had which kind receiver. The internet presence of the public-service broadcasters is also financed through those fees.
- lkrubner 8y ago
  "Who do you think should sponsor the creation of arts and the publication of news?" The government is the obvious choice. The USA already has the National Endowment for the Arts, which is a good start but it needs vastly more money. The important thing is that the NEA has none of the corrupting biases that afflict companies such as Google and Facebook. Most Western countries have some equivalent for the NEA.
  - mythrwy 8y ago
    You don't see any conflict of interest with the government being a main sponsor of publication of news?
    - lkrubner 8y ago
      Do you see any conflict of interest between the government appointing judges who will then, at some point during their career, probably hear civil lawsuits against the government? The independence of the judiciary developed throughout the 1500s and 1600s and then finally, in Britain, was consolidated into a formal principle with the Act Of Settlement of 1706. And since that time, the principle of independent appointees of the government carrying out government functions is an idea that has spread to other areas of government. We can certainly put in place guarantees of an independent NEA.
      - votepaunchy 8y ago
        Have you considered that an independent judiciary has been aided by an independent media? Who will watch the watchers and all.
      - mythrwy 8y ago
        To me, what you are saying sounds more akin to government mandated attorneys for litigants in civil suits though, not judges. And yes, I would see that being an issue.
- starbeast 8y ago
  Micropayments ideally need some kind of prepay token system similar to phone credit, so you can buy a certain amount to then spend in small increments.
- akvadrako 8y ago
  If you want art and news then you should support it with your wallet, perhaps as donations. Other people may do the same.
- mlthoughts2018 8y ago
  Why do we need a funding model for arts or news publication? For example, most of the artistic content I consume (aside from cinema) originates from people who self-publish online (blogs, articles, podcasts) and do not involve advertising nor ask for donations in the delivery of the content. Those people like creating and delivering content to others for free. They are happy to lose their own money in exchange for the product they like (an audience consuming their content). Just like I am happy to lose money to reserve a spot in my recreational basketball league. I don’t also let tennis shoe brands bid on the logo of the t-shirt I’ll wear. I think the problem is that we have this idea that someone should be paid for content. But I don’t agree. If they want to be paid for it, that’s totally fine too and they can charge a paywall, ask for donations, or attach ads, etc. However, plenty of other people write better stories, give away better paintings, generate better games or videos, share better poems or summaries of world news or published research or opinion articles — all without expecting any type of payment or earnings to come from their efforts or costs to make and distribute it. The lone aspect of this I think might not be fully sustained just as people’s voluntary recreational pursuits is the upfront capital required to fund some types of investigative journalism and provide legal protection to journalists. That part makes sense to me as a subscription cost for consuming from centralized news organizations, and if those orgs run out of money, it’s a reflection that society doesn’t value the journalism compared with recreational journalists happy to generate the content without compensation. I personally want to pay so that journalism can be thoroughly investigative and not captured by bad state actors or bad corporate actors. But that’s just my opinion... one that most humans in my country don’t seem to share, resulting in market conditions where for-pay journalism can only be sustained by a very small number of groups.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - bobajeff 8y ago
    This is my thought as well. Content creation is a passion industry so creators should be prepared for making less than people in other industries. Maybe creators should be more valued by society. If that is the case giving up our attention and privacy for free content is not the best way for a society to support them.
orev 8y ago
The point is that the reason you feel the need to immediately block ads is because of how they have been abused and pushed to further and further absurdity over the years.
- akvadrako 8y ago
  That may be the point, but it's wrong. Advertising is manipulative and causes people to make bad decisions. It shouldn't be allowed at all.
  - matt4077 8y ago
    Advertisement is a required feature of a market-based economy, because it (also) informes consumers of the choices available. Without ads, the chances of breaking into an established market are extremely low.
  - H1Supreme 8y ago
    > Advertising is manipulative and causes people to make bad decisions. Not all advertising is some evil plot to brainwash the public. At it's core, it's a way to let the public know about your product. In the correct context, it's beneficial to the consumer. My Grandpa used to subscribe to Hemmings Motor News. It's a magazine that is focused on restoring vintage cars. It has regular ads, and a pretty large classified section. He used that magazine, including the ads, as a resource for vehicle restoration. Ads selling parts for 1940's Chevy pickup trucks in a section of a magazine specifically catering to that audience make sense. They're beneficial to people in the market for those products. I agree that web sites or real sites (eg. Times Square) that simply bombard you with anything and everything are awful. But, you can't put all advertising under one umbrella.
  - systematical 8y ago
    So spend tons of time and money building a startup, but don't advertise it...got it. Sound economics.
  - ElFitz 8y ago
    > Advertising is manipulative and causes people to make bad decisions. So do a lot of unasked opinions, especially on the internet (oh the irony). They're somehow still allowed to have and share them.
Angostura 8y ago
And I don't like paying to watch films. Neither really address the original statement
kodablah 8y ago
I don't see how what you personally can't stand has anything to do with there being nothing wrong with it existing. It's like me saying I very much disagree with a statement saying there's nothing wrong with a beet-supported farm. Maybe there is something wrong with an ad supported web, but a better argument can be made.
systematical 8y ago
I have no problem with reasonable ads as a means of compensating a website for free content, but the free market once again went too far here. There is a sense of entitlement that just gets under my skin when people think they can just have stuff for free.

amelius 8y ago

> There's nothing wrong with an ad supported web Keep in mind that ads are a very limited monetization scheme. For example, you can't even increase the price of your content and set it at a desired value.

spullara 8y ago
That is basically how advertising works. You set the price and people pay to be next to the content. If you don't get the price you want, don't share the content. For people blindly putting a javascript tag on their page for google ads I would agree but you can bet that places like Techmeme and DaringFireball set their price.
- amelius 8y ago
  Yes, but it's still very limited. The price point where nobody will want to advertise is pretty low (I'm guessing). There's no way to escape that, and basically your only option is to change the entire monetization scheme.