5 ms·

I'm amazed that all the interested parties haven't got together to flesh out a microtransaction standard. The whole ad-blocking debate would be moot if we could

I'm amazed that all the interested parties haven't got together to flesh out a microtransaction standard. The whole ad-blocking debate would be moot if we could pay a few cents to read an article free of distracting ads. If you choose not to pay, you get the ads and don't get to complain about ad-blocker-blockers because you were offered an alternative. I know it has been attempted in the past with little success, but all those attempts were just companies going it alone and hoping for the best. If the W3C, browser makers, banks and publishers all got together a standard could be developed. Something that would be core to web standards. It wouldn't be easy, but it would solve a lot of problems.

manigandham 7y ago
It's been tried countless times. We tried as well: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19038540 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19038540 The issue isn't the payment tech, it's human behavior. People don't want to or can't pay for all the content they consume.
- emptyparadise 7y ago
  Companies rewiring everybody to want everything for free with ad-supported models certainly doesn't help.
- ohithereyou 7y ago
  I don't think this is down to human behavior. Some content has zero or negative value.
  - manigandham 7y ago
    Who gets to judge the value of content? And how can it have "negative value"? Regardless, the action of consuming the content itself means that it has inherent value. I believe whether it's worth it is a decision for the user instead of dictated by someone else.
    - minitech 7y ago
      > Who gets to judge the value of content? The user. That’s the context – the user deciding who gets their money. > And how can it have "negative value"? Zero value, plus the time it took to find out that it had zero value. > Regardless, the action of consuming the content itself means that it has inherent value. Not really.
      - manigandham 7y ago
        I believe that's what I said, but to be clear: yes it should be up the individual, however if you look at most people's actions then their demand and willing consumption of content does not align with what they can or will pay for. For example, blocking ads (even though most know that is the trade-off for the content) instead of refusing to visit the site. If the content has no value, why visit the site at all? Surely not ever pageview has zero value?
elwell 7y ago
We tried compensating users for every ad they see, using a browser extension (ClearCoin), but Google took it off the Chrome Web Store because extensions have to have a single purpose; ad blocking & replacing is apparently two purposes. Maybe they just didn't like us.
dangrossman 7y ago
> The whole ad-blocking debate would be moot if we could pay a few cents to read an article free of distracting ads. It would not. You're worth more to the advertisers than a few cents, so even if you and everyone else chipped in, many ad-supported sites would see their revenue plummet, and close their doors. Consumers spend a lot of money buying things, from groceries to appliances, and a percentage of each of those sales goes to the ad budget to steer that buying. Unless everything in every store got a few percent cheaper, consumers literally don't have the money to distribute to the websites at anywhere near the level advertisers pay. Every single American would have to pay Facebook $15-20 per month to match the advertising revenue Facebook generates per user, not a few cents. The cost of using Google's services would be similar to a cable or cell phone bill, assuming every single person that uses them continues to and signs up for that bill.
kweks 7y ago
I'm browser crypto mining. There's a direct link between the time a user is engaged, and the amount of money a publisher earns. The relationship is direct between reader and publisher; making quality content becomes important again, there's no adoption friction, and ad networks become a thing of the past. It's no wonder Google blocked browser mining quick-smart.. it had the potential to bring down the entire house of cards.
- grepthisab 7y ago
  Stop spreading this nonsense.
  - sergiotapia 7y ago
    What part of his comment is nonsense?
    - mafuy 7y ago
      I'd say the part where it is ignored that I don't want websites to drain my laptop battery? :)
      - kweks 7y ago
        I think there is middle ground: * Browser imposed intelligent CPU limits * User Preference: Don't want mining? You'll see ads instead. The reality of humanity is that people operate via incentive. The internet is no different - publishers are incentivised by money. There must be a mechanism to provide that - today's interpretation is increasingly aggressive advertising, which makes noone but the advertisers happy. Crypto-mining provides an incentive for publishers to invest in their content, knowing they will be duly rewarded, without a middle-man. Users know that they are providing revenue to publishers simply by the act of viewing content. It has the potential to be empowering for everyone involved. However, to riposte as glibly as you did: If you don't feel like compensating a publisher for their content, they may not feel like serving it to you. It's lose-lose for everyone. What do you propose, then?
dredmorbius 7y ago
Micropayments is simply the wrong model for numerous reasons. I've written on this several times: https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/search?q=micropayments&restrict_sr=on&sort=relevance&t=all https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/search?q=micropayments&... Nick Szabo, Clay Shirky, and Andrew Odlyzko far more ably: http://szabo.best.vwh.net/micropayments.html http://szabo.best.vwh.net/micropayments.html http://www.shirky.com/writings/fame_vs_fortune.html http://www.shirky.com/writings/fame_vs_fortune.html http://www.dtc.umn.edu/~odlyzko/doc/case.against.micropayments.pdf http://www.dtc.umn.edu/~odlyzko/doc/case.against.micropaymen... (PDF) A vastly more sensible option: a means-based, universal fee (a/k/a tax) and payments to creators based on both UBI and quality + access distributions -- a universal content syndication mechanism: https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/1uotb3/a_modest_proposal_universal_online_media_payment/ https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/1uotb3/a_modes... $100 per person per year from the world's richest 1 billion inhabitants would match all present publishing income, and present ad spend. Truth is we're already paying for the content, we're just not getting it.

manigandham 7y ago

It's been tried countless times. We tried as well: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19038540 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19038540 The issue isn't the payment tech, it's human behavior. People don't want to or can't pay for all the content they consume.

emptyparadise 7y ago
Companies rewiring everybody to want everything for free with ad-supported models certainly doesn't help.
ohithereyou 7y ago
I don't think this is down to human behavior. Some content has zero or negative value.
- manigandham 7y ago
  Who gets to judge the value of content? And how can it have "negative value"? Regardless, the action of consuming the content itself means that it has inherent value. I believe whether it's worth it is a decision for the user instead of dictated by someone else.
  - minitech 7y ago
    > Who gets to judge the value of content? The user. That’s the context – the user deciding who gets their money. > And how can it have "negative value"? Zero value, plus the time it took to find out that it had zero value. > Regardless, the action of consuming the content itself means that it has inherent value. Not really.
    - manigandham 7y ago
      I believe that's what I said, but to be clear: yes it should be up the individual, however if you look at most people's actions then their demand and willing consumption of content does not align with what they can or will pay for. For example, blocking ads (even though most know that is the trade-off for the content) instead of refusing to visit the site. If the content has no value, why visit the site at all? Surely not ever pageview has zero value?

elwell 7y ago

We tried compensating users for every ad they see, using a browser extension (ClearCoin), but Google took it off the Chrome Web Store because extensions have to have a single purpose; ad blocking & replacing is apparently two purposes. Maybe they just didn't like us.

dangrossman 7y ago

> The whole ad-blocking debate would be moot if we could pay a few cents to read an article free of distracting ads. It would not. You're worth more to the advertisers than a few cents, so even if you and everyone else chipped in, many ad-supported sites would see their revenue plummet, and close their doors. Consumers spend a lot of money buying things, from groceries to appliances, and a percentage of each of those sales goes to the ad budget to steer that buying. Unless everything in every store got a few percent cheaper, consumers literally don't have the money to distribute to the websites at anywhere near the level advertisers pay. Every single American would have to pay Facebook $15-20 per month to match the advertising revenue Facebook generates per user, not a few cents. The cost of using Google's services would be similar to a cable or cell phone bill, assuming every single person that uses them continues to and signs up for that bill.

kweks 7y ago

I'm browser crypto mining. There's a direct link between the time a user is engaged, and the amount of money a publisher earns. The relationship is direct between reader and publisher; making quality content becomes important again, there's no adoption friction, and ad networks become a thing of the past. It's no wonder Google blocked browser mining quick-smart.. it had the potential to bring down the entire house of cards.

grepthisab 7y ago
Stop spreading this nonsense.
- sergiotapia 7y ago
  What part of his comment is nonsense?
  - mafuy 7y ago
    I'd say the part where it is ignored that I don't want websites to drain my laptop battery? :)
    - kweks 7y ago
      I think there is middle ground: * Browser imposed intelligent CPU limits * User Preference: Don't want mining? You'll see ads instead. The reality of humanity is that people operate via incentive. The internet is no different - publishers are incentivised by money. There must be a mechanism to provide that - today's interpretation is increasingly aggressive advertising, which makes noone but the advertisers happy. Crypto-mining provides an incentive for publishers to invest in their content, knowing they will be duly rewarded, without a middle-man. Users know that they are providing revenue to publishers simply by the act of viewing content. It has the potential to be empowering for everyone involved. However, to riposte as glibly as you did: If you don't feel like compensating a publisher for their content, they may not feel like serving it to you. It's lose-lose for everyone. What do you propose, then?

dredmorbius 7y ago

Micropayments is simply the wrong model for numerous reasons. I've written on this several times: https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/search?q=micropayments&restrict_sr=on&sort=relevance&t=all https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/search?q=micropayments&... Nick Szabo, Clay Shirky, and Andrew Odlyzko far more ably: http://szabo.best.vwh.net/micropayments.html http://szabo.best.vwh.net/micropayments.html http://www.shirky.com/writings/fame_vs_fortune.html http://www.shirky.com/writings/fame_vs_fortune.html http://www.dtc.umn.edu/~odlyzko/doc/case.against.micropayments.pdf http://www.dtc.umn.edu/~odlyzko/doc/case.against.micropaymen... (PDF) A vastly more sensible option: a means-based, universal fee (a/k/a tax) and payments to creators based on both UBI and quality + access distributions -- a universal content syndication mechanism: https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/1uotb3/a_modest_proposal_universal_online_media_payment/ https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/1uotb3/a_modes... $100 per person per year from the world's richest 1 billion inhabitants would match all present publishing income, and present ad spend. Truth is we're already paying for the content, we're just not getting it.