3 ms·
> Just ban them completely or don't bother Wait, you mean ban all ads completely and make Google lose 100 billion dollars of revenue and make advertisers waste
by miguelmota 7y ago
> Just ban them completely or don't bother
Wait, you mean ban all ads completely and make Google lose 100 billion dollars of revenue and make advertisers waste more money on non-targeted ads increasing costs of products and make users pay subscription fees for currently ad funded services like Google Search? Otherwise I don't see how your statement makes any practical sense
- throwaway2048 7y ago100 Billion is a vast overstatement.
- brycesbeard 7y agoIn 2018, google sold 118 billion worth of ads. Parent was saying (I think) that all ads present misleading narratives so google would have to ban all ads.
- miguelmota 7y agoIs it though? > A staggering $24.1 billion of Google's $27.77 billion revenue for Q3 2018 was from advertising – roughly a 22% increase from $19.8 billion in Q3 2017. source: https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/020515/business-google.asp https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/020515/busin...
- ddingus 7y agoOver a decade, from politics, that amount is high, but not unreasonable. Phrased in terms of opportunity cost, it's appropriate, again if a bit high. Media gets YUGE dollars from politics. That flow of money in politics is one of the biggest problems in the US. Many want to fix it. That risk, in terms of the financial opportunity assessment under discussion right now, would reasonably ratchet that number down further.
- DataWorker 7y agoRight. All ads are political by definition. So it’s really a ban on opposing ideology, and on overtly ideological ads which are really not so much of a problem. I think it’s a non-change from the current system, mostly a pr move.