6 ms·

> It dismisses the idea that there could be alternate ways to fund content (i.e. micropayments). I get why they promote "free content" but it is not free at all

> It dismisses the idea that there could be alternate ways to fund content (i.e. micropayments). I get why they promote "free content" but it is not free at all when you are trading your attention and privacy. Google have been very concerned about lack of diversity on their profitable business portfolio and this was a seemingly promising idea at the moment, so they actually tried that idea and miserably failed. People don't want to pay a single cent to publishers unless there's a significant value delivered (like music, movie subscriptions) while the majority is okay with using their privacy as currency. If you have a viable proposal on a "micropayment" business, go try and become the next tech giant.

kerkeslager 7y ago
Other funding sources fail on the current market because they're competing with content users think is free. But if browser developers remove the option to pay with privacy, that competitor is removed. Google is one of the companies positioned to make that happen. It's true that people will probably still only pay for things that provide them significant value, but a) low-value content is one of the biggest problems on the internet, so putting those companies out of business is a great result as far as I am concerned, and b) search is obviously high value content, so Google has nothing to worry about.
blub 7y ago
Individual decisions might make sense for individuals, although it's obvious that the level of tracking is now so deep that most people do not understand what is going on and they would be shocked if they knew how they could be taken advantage of. Collectively it's untenable for a single for-profit entity to hold highly personal information on billions of people from all over the world and have a direct, immediate communication channel open to them. These companies have immense power and they need to be brought under control.
KptMarchewa 7y ago
They tried: >For instance, a site like Oxford Reference can charge between 25 to 99 cents for access to a single page of content I want something entirely different. I want to pay what google makes on me watching ads (or 2x that, I don't care), and distribute that to people creating content I watch without me interfering on that process. Essentially, what happens when I listen to music on Spotify.
- AJ007 7y ago
  You need to not only pay Google’s cut, you need to pay what the publisher makes. Then it has to be multiplied to make up for the people who do not opt in to the system. Just a rough guess, you might be looking at several thousand dollars per year per participant depending on what the ad value of the content was. To make it a mandatory system is a whole other issue.

kerkeslager 7y ago

Other funding sources fail on the current market because they're competing with content users think is free. But if browser developers remove the option to pay with privacy, that competitor is removed. Google is one of the companies positioned to make that happen. It's true that people will probably still only pay for things that provide them significant value, but a) low-value content is one of the biggest problems on the internet, so putting those companies out of business is a great result as far as I am concerned, and b) search is obviously high value content, so Google has nothing to worry about.

blub 7y ago

Individual decisions might make sense for individuals, although it's obvious that the level of tracking is now so deep that most people do not understand what is going on and they would be shocked if they knew how they could be taken advantage of. Collectively it's untenable for a single for-profit entity to hold highly personal information on billions of people from all over the world and have a direct, immediate communication channel open to them. These companies have immense power and they need to be brought under control.

KptMarchewa 7y ago

They tried: >For instance, a site like Oxford Reference can charge between 25 to 99 cents for access to a single page of content I want something entirely different. I want to pay what google makes on me watching ads (or 2x that, I don't care), and distribute that to people creating content I watch without me interfering on that process. Essentially, what happens when I listen to music on Spotify.

AJ007 7y ago
You need to not only pay Google’s cut, you need to pay what the publisher makes. Then it has to be multiplied to make up for the people who do not opt in to the system. Just a rough guess, you might be looking at several thousand dollars per year per participant depending on what the ad value of the content was. To make it a mandatory system is a whole other issue.