4 ms·

I'm not against paying with currency, except insofar as this inherently benefits a subset of humanity. But the issue is not that ads are inherently bad, it's th

I'm not against paying with currency, except insofar as this inherently benefits a subset of humanity. But the issue is not that ads are inherently bad, it's that the interaction is inherently dishonest. A more honest way would allow you, the end-user, to bid for the same ad spots to allow a proper valuation of the ad to the perspective of the consumer. My impression is that Google goes to large efforts to obscure the 'value' of a web page from consumers. If there were proper exchanges between ads and money this might make sense, though I can only imagine the number of ads you might watch to pay for a meal would drive anyone insane. Plus, ads try to target users with money, so presumably their value is proportional to your value. That's probably also a key reason why you don't see this anywhere: it's a blatantly classist practice.

joshuamorton 7y ago
My recollection is that google has tried variants on what you suggest (contributor). Publishers don't like it (I don't know why), and I think I recall consumers not wanting to pay enough.
- SomeOldThrow 7y ago
  > https://contributor.google.com/v/beta https://contributor.google.com/v/beta If this is a serious effort it's incredibly disappointing. > Publishers don't like it (I don't know why), and I think I recall consumers not wanting to pay enough. Not wanting to pay enough for what? To even justify giving us a choice? Inexcusable.
  - joshuamorton 7y ago
    > If this is a serious effort it's incredibly disappointing. This was the second attempt, after a previous one (in 2015?) also failed. > Not wanting to pay enough for what? To even justify giving us a choice? Inexcusable. To justify providing a service. Unfortunately Google isn't a charity. To clarify, my recollection is that contributor leads to less revenue because consumers are unwilling to pay as much as advertisements provide for the same site. That means that either 1. You as a consumer have to pay more than you're willing (and maybe you're willing to pay more, but not enough people are) 2. Google subsidizes contributor users 3. Publishers take less money. It appears you're suggesting that its inexcusable that a corporation doesn't want to subsidize your preferences.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]

joshuamorton 7y ago

My recollection is that google has tried variants on what you suggest (contributor). Publishers don't like it (I don't know why), and I think I recall consumers not wanting to pay enough.

SomeOldThrow 7y ago
> https://contributor.google.com/v/beta https://contributor.google.com/v/beta If this is a serious effort it's incredibly disappointing. > Publishers don't like it (I don't know why), and I think I recall consumers not wanting to pay enough. Not wanting to pay enough for what? To even justify giving us a choice? Inexcusable.
- joshuamorton 7y ago
  > If this is a serious effort it's incredibly disappointing. This was the second attempt, after a previous one (in 2015?) also failed. > Not wanting to pay enough for what? To even justify giving us a choice? Inexcusable. To justify providing a service. Unfortunately Google isn't a charity. To clarify, my recollection is that contributor leads to less revenue because consumers are unwilling to pay as much as advertisements provide for the same site. That means that either 1. You as a consumer have to pay more than you're willing (and maybe you're willing to pay more, but not enough people are) 2. Google subsidizes contributor users 3. Publishers take less money. It appears you're suggesting that its inexcusable that a corporation doesn't want to subsidize your preferences.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]