5 ms·

My solution to this problem is simply that these websites shouldn't exist. A network of more than a thousand or so people can't reasonably give you any real sen

My solution to this problem is simply that these websites shouldn't exist. A network of more than a thousand or so people can't reasonably give you any real sense of community. All these sites have a commonality: they are ad supported, so in order to end this the consumer ad industry must be collapsed, block ads and avoid purchasing products advertised to you. Once the ad industry is collapsed such sites will either be paid for or will be setup to facilitate a genuine need. This will maximise the benefits and avoid creating a constant stream of broadly irrelevant and useless information.

nradov 7y ago
I doubt that anyone will ever figure out a reliable way of blocking ads on the major social media web sites and mobile apps. It just doesn't seem technically feasible due to how the platforms work and the way ads are directly integrated into content.
- faissaloo 7y ago
  Legally ads have to be marked as such, so it will definitely be possible somehow. Additionally, 'good enough' is acceptable, it might be a constant fight but one side has less stamina than the other by virtue of the fact that they're limited by market logic.
luckylion 7y ago
What makes you think that people don't value those sites enough to pay for using them? People pay huge sums for cable packages which is essentially a monthly fee for "make the time go by more quickly". Social media is similar in that regard, so it might just be worth money to them as well.
- faissaloo 7y ago
  If people valued the existing sites enough to pay for them they'd already be doing that, it would simply be a more reliable stream of income.
  - luckylion 7y ago
    There is no option to pay instead of getting ads. I'd happily pay for Google's search sans ads/tracking and their focus on the dumbest user possible, but I can't because they don't offer the option. I do agree that most people won't prefer paying with money instead of attention, but that doesn't mean they won't prefer paying with money over not having the service.
    - faissaloo 7y ago
      There have been countless services who've attempted this model, none of them suceeded, in fact I can't even remember their names off the top of my head because no one bothered.
      - luckylion 7y ago
        That's while they are competing with free. It's hard to compete with free. It's much easier to compete with non-existant.
        wutbrodo 7y ago
        Sure, but free is the defect state in the Prisoner's Dilemma. If Google provides a paid option, they'll still be competing with their free option. If they switch entirely to paid, Bing immediately starts advertising as "the free search engine". This dynamic is even more powerful for network-effects-driven platforms like Twitter or fb
        luckylion 7y ago
        Sure, but the premise was that it would go away if you took away ads as a funding model. I doubt that FB would simply fold and say "oh well" if, by some miraculous law, ads were no longer an option for funding. And Youtube (which is counted as social media here) already has Youtube Premium/Red, where people (at least in some countries) can pay to get an ad-free experience and some extra content. When people perceive a value, they'll pay an appropriate price in some way (be it by spending money or watching ads), that's all I'm saying. And they appear to value social media or they wouldn't spend that much time on it. So if you remove "just watch some ads" as a payment form, I'm pretty sure that at least some will switch to handing over money.

nradov 7y ago

I doubt that anyone will ever figure out a reliable way of blocking ads on the major social media web sites and mobile apps. It just doesn't seem technically feasible due to how the platforms work and the way ads are directly integrated into content.

faissaloo 7y ago
Legally ads have to be marked as such, so it will definitely be possible somehow. Additionally, 'good enough' is acceptable, it might be a constant fight but one side has less stamina than the other by virtue of the fact that they're limited by market logic.

luckylion 7y ago

What makes you think that people don't value those sites enough to pay for using them? People pay huge sums for cable packages which is essentially a monthly fee for "make the time go by more quickly". Social media is similar in that regard, so it might just be worth money to them as well.

faissaloo 7y ago
If people valued the existing sites enough to pay for them they'd already be doing that, it would simply be a more reliable stream of income.
- luckylion 7y ago
  There is no option to pay instead of getting ads. I'd happily pay for Google's search sans ads/tracking and their focus on the dumbest user possible, but I can't because they don't offer the option. I do agree that most people won't prefer paying with money instead of attention, but that doesn't mean they won't prefer paying with money over not having the service.
  - faissaloo 7y ago
    There have been countless services who've attempted this model, none of them suceeded, in fact I can't even remember their names off the top of my head because no one bothered.
    - luckylion 7y ago
      That's while they are competing with free. It's hard to compete with free. It's much easier to compete with non-existant.
      - wutbrodo 7y ago
        Sure, but free is the defect state in the Prisoner's Dilemma. If Google provides a paid option, they'll still be competing with their free option. If they switch entirely to paid, Bing immediately starts advertising as "the free search engine". This dynamic is even more powerful for network-effects-driven platforms like Twitter or fb
        luckylion 7y ago
        Sure, but the premise was that it would go away if you took away ads as a funding model. I doubt that FB would simply fold and say "oh well" if, by some miraculous law, ads were no longer an option for funding. And Youtube (which is counted as social media here) already has Youtube Premium/Red, where people (at least in some countries) can pay to get an ad-free experience and some extra content. When people perceive a value, they'll pay an appropriate price in some way (be it by spending money or watching ads), that's all I'm saying. And they appear to value social media or they wouldn't spend that much time on it. So if you remove "just watch some ads" as a payment form, I'm pretty sure that at least some will switch to handing over money.