3 ms·

Wired is a (particularly) tracking-reliant publisher, so I'm not particularly surprised that they adopted this tone. I also hope that any sort of tracking-base

by fouric 7y ago

Wired is a (particularly) tracking-reliant publisher, so I'm not particularly surprised that they adopted this tone. I also hope that any sort of tracking-based business model goes extinct. Unfortunately, in the case of online publishing, consumers have repeatedly rejected micropayments (most recently Blendle[1]), which I believe is the only viable alternative. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blendle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blendle

liability 7y ago
Respectable news organizations have traditionally at least played lip service to keeping their journalists/editors separate from their business/advertising people, such that the journalists are free to publish articles that run contrary to the business interests of the paper. (Example: https://www.nytimes.com/editorial-standards/ethical-journalism.html#advertisersMarketingPromotion https://www.nytimes.com/editorial-standards/ethical-journali...) Of course, Wired is not a respectable publication, and this just goes to show that.
oftenwrong 7y ago
I tried loading Wired in a stock Chromium, and it's hard to believe how poor of an experience it is. You have to dismiss multiple overlays. The actual article is only readable in a tiny window formed by sticky elements and ads. Every page or so there is a big ad in the middle of the article. Hundreds of requests flying by in the background. In my "daily driver" browser (a customised Firefox), nothing loads by default but the HTML. No JS, no CSS, no web fonts, etc. No overlays. The text fills the page, rendered in the font I prefer, in the size that I find easiest to read. No ads. Only a handful of requests. People tell me I'm crazy for rejecting the modern web, but the experience is often superior.
- tracker1 7y ago
  I do like JS myself... I wish there was a way to disable JS in IFrames (where ads/trackers typically propagate).
jacekm 7y ago
I am yet to see micropayments system that is easy enough. I don't want to look for my credit card or log in to paypal just to transfer $1 to someone. In my opinion the system that Brave is trying to introduce has the greatest potential. If only I could buy Brave tokens instead of "earning" them by watching ads I would have gladly supported my favorite publishers.
WorldMaker 7y ago
Traditional media never needed individual tracking for advertisements nor "micropayments". Just because we have the technology to track advertisement spends to the exact person doesn't mean we have to. Just because we because we have the technology charge (fractions of) pennies per article read doesn't invalidate the traditional subscriber model. (In fact both microtargeting and micropayments are arguably much worse, less stable business models from the perspective of a publisher. Y "demographic" or "universal" advertisers at a steady monthly ad buy with X subscribers at a steady monthly spend is an easy formula to forecast future revenue from. O(X).Y micro-targeted ad buys with X readers at O(X).Z articles per month, is almost entirely impossible to forecast with any accuracy.)
- FussyZeus 7y ago
  This so much. We had large media organizations and publishers of news/magazines/television/radio for decades and in some instances, centuries, before targeted advertising was even a thing. Traditional advertising is now nearly dead because it's worthless and as a result, media orgs have had to rely increasingly on these creepy as hell targeting advertising systems. Why? We as consumers never agreed to this. We were never even asked. Make the entire industry illegal, and publishers will revert to traditional advertisement. Again and again it's been made clear that the ad tech industry cannot be trusted with our data, so why do we continue allowing it to collect it and use it to show us crap we don't want? Throw it all in the garbage. The whole damn thing.
- fouric 7y ago
  You're completely right, publishers don't need to use the micropayment model. I meant, and should have said, that publishers aren't adopting a low-friction, single-account payment service, of which micropayments are only one. This is still a massive issue, however. Because the internet makes most online publishers global, consumers have access to many more content sources, and so if even if publishers adjust their subscription prices to match the lower distribution costs and larger audiences that they have access to, the effort of signing up for more than just one or two subscriptions will be much more than most consumers (including me) want to invest.

by fouric 7y ago

liability 7y ago

Respectable news organizations have traditionally at least played lip service to keeping their journalists/editors separate from their business/advertising people, such that the journalists are free to publish articles that run contrary to the business interests of the paper. (Example: https://www.nytimes.com/editorial-standards/ethical-journalism.html#advertisersMarketingPromotion https://www.nytimes.com/editorial-standards/ethical-journali...) Of course, Wired is not a respectable publication, and this just goes to show that.

oftenwrong 7y ago

I tried loading Wired in a stock Chromium, and it's hard to believe how poor of an experience it is. You have to dismiss multiple overlays. The actual article is only readable in a tiny window formed by sticky elements and ads. Every page or so there is a big ad in the middle of the article. Hundreds of requests flying by in the background. In my "daily driver" browser (a customised Firefox), nothing loads by default but the HTML. No JS, no CSS, no web fonts, etc. No overlays. The text fills the page, rendered in the font I prefer, in the size that I find easiest to read. No ads. Only a handful of requests. People tell me I'm crazy for rejecting the modern web, but the experience is often superior.

tracker1 7y ago
I do like JS myself... I wish there was a way to disable JS in IFrames (where ads/trackers typically propagate).

jacekm 7y ago

I am yet to see micropayments system that is easy enough. I don't want to look for my credit card or log in to paypal just to transfer $1 to someone. In my opinion the system that Brave is trying to introduce has the greatest potential. If only I could buy Brave tokens instead of "earning" them by watching ads I would have gladly supported my favorite publishers.

WorldMaker 7y ago

Traditional media never needed individual tracking for advertisements nor "micropayments". Just because we have the technology to track advertisement spends to the exact person doesn't mean we have to. Just because we because we have the technology charge (fractions of) pennies per article read doesn't invalidate the traditional subscriber model. (In fact both microtargeting and micropayments are arguably much worse, less stable business models from the perspective of a publisher. Y "demographic" or "universal" advertisers at a steady monthly ad buy with X subscribers at a steady monthly spend is an easy formula to forecast future revenue from. O(X).Y micro-targeted ad buys with X readers at O(X).Z articles per month, is almost entirely impossible to forecast with any accuracy.)

FussyZeus 7y ago
This so much. We had large media organizations and publishers of news/magazines/television/radio for decades and in some instances, centuries, before targeted advertising was even a thing. Traditional advertising is now nearly dead because it's worthless and as a result, media orgs have had to rely increasingly on these creepy as hell targeting advertising systems. Why? We as consumers never agreed to this. We were never even asked. Make the entire industry illegal, and publishers will revert to traditional advertisement. Again and again it's been made clear that the ad tech industry cannot be trusted with our data, so why do we continue allowing it to collect it and use it to show us crap we don't want? Throw it all in the garbage. The whole damn thing.
fouric 7y ago
You're completely right, publishers don't need to use the micropayment model. I meant, and should have said, that publishers aren't adopting a low-friction, single-account payment service, of which micropayments are only one. This is still a massive issue, however. Because the internet makes most online publishers global, consumers have access to many more content sources, and so if even if publishers adjust their subscription prices to match the lower distribution costs and larger audiences that they have access to, the effort of signing up for more than just one or two subscriptions will be much more than most consumers (including me) want to invest.