5 ms·

Just for interest sake, do you ever read news on the internet, and if so how do you pay for it? I personally read a lot of news online, most of it is such utte

Just for interest sake, do you ever read news on the internet, and if so how do you pay for it? I personally read a lot of news online, most of it is such utter trash that I would not want to pay for it. I have paid for some specific sites intermittently - currently I pay about $20 USD a month to one specific content creator that produces news content - but that is mostly because it is rather niche news that nobody else (that I know of) is reporting on. For the rest of the news I consume I feel that it is of such a low quality that the ad revenue is all they deserve.

bcrosby95 7y ago
Websites don't need to use personalized ads.
- bestnameever 7y ago
  Thats an odd thing to say. Websites don't need to allow free access either. I can't comment on any particular revenue model but I imagine many websites chose personalized ads as they provide better revenue returns than non-personalized ads. would switching to non-personalized advertisements without taking additional steps support the website enough? Maybe but its hard to say one way or the other without looking at the data.
  - bcrosby95 7y ago
    Correct, they don't have to offer free access. What they do need to do is pick a business model that is legal in countries they wish to operate in. Things like GDPR doesn't prevent ads. Maybe they make less money off non-personalized ads, but companies can't do whatever they want just because they make more money that way. I don't find it odd that laws can hamper the revenue of certain business models.
  - JadeNB 7y ago
    > Thats an odd thing to say. Websites don't need to allow free access either. I can't comment on any particular revenue model but I imagine many websites chose personalized ads as they provide better revenue returns than non-personalized ads. Another way to get revenue, which doesn't itself transgress against these privacy-focused laws, is to charge directly for providing your service. That's totally legal! Well, but maybe some companies would find that they don't get enough subscribers to fund their business—then the solution, in a privacy-focused environment, is that those business don't exist, rather than that they get a shadow source of funding by accepting bribes for participating in scummy privacy violations. This would be a very different environment from the one in which we live—clearly better in some ways and clearly worse in others—but it's far from impossible.
    - bestnameever 7y ago
      > Another way to get revenue, which doesn't itself transgress against these privacy-focused laws, is to charge directly for providing your service. That's totally legal! Is that what the consumer wants? Also - is depriving services to those who aren't able to pay the fee to participate the right thing to do when they don't mind something like privacy focused advertisements? Judging by all the people unwilling to purchase Youtube Premium I would say no.
    - manigandham 7y ago
      Why are people not allowed to choose for themselves? Should we start banning what people can share on social media too for their own protection? Also not everyone can pay for content so you're punishing people who can least afford it by having direct payment be the only way forward. Privacy laws that remove freedom and opportunity aren't very good laws.
      - alkonaut 7y ago
        I absolutely think that site owners and visitors should not be allowed to enter an agreement where content is provided based on selling PII of the visitor. The reason is simple: the visitor can’t be properly made aware of what they are actually paying. So it should simply be banned. Yes, at the expense of maybe a majority of content online disappearing. And yes at the expense of people who can’t afford to pay for content in cash being denied it entirely.
        manigandham 7y ago
        No thanks, that sounds absolutely terrible. I, and billions of others on the planet, prefer to make our own choices.
        Thiez 7y ago
        You are still allowed to consent to tracking cookies under the GDPR, so nothing has to change for you if you don't want it to. The difference is that you now have a choice, companies are no longer allowed to make that choice for you. What is so terrible about that?
- manigandham 7y ago
  Cookies and (wrongly considered) PII data like IP addresses are not only used for personalized ads. Contextual ads would also require them to function properly, which is an immediate "legitimate use" workaround.
alkonaut 7y ago
I pay for a subscription on one news site. I read dozens of sites, but I’m not going to allow being tracked if I can help it. I also don’t much care whether these sites survive or not, and I absolutely wouldn’t care if they disappeared because people behaved like me (answering no to tracking and/or using ad blockers). My thinking is that if everyone blocked tracking ads, then money would return to dumb ads (that now aren’t worth anything because of tracking/targeted ads). So I hope that’s the future. If it isn’t then I guess the less optimistic future is that half of all “free” content online disappears while the rest is concentrated in silos like Facebook and YouTube that can ensure eyes on ads. I think both futures are better than the status quo.

bcrosby95 7y ago

Websites don't need to use personalized ads.

bestnameever 7y ago
Thats an odd thing to say. Websites don't need to allow free access either. I can't comment on any particular revenue model but I imagine many websites chose personalized ads as they provide better revenue returns than non-personalized ads. would switching to non-personalized advertisements without taking additional steps support the website enough? Maybe but its hard to say one way or the other without looking at the data.
- bcrosby95 7y ago
  Correct, they don't have to offer free access. What they do need to do is pick a business model that is legal in countries they wish to operate in. Things like GDPR doesn't prevent ads. Maybe they make less money off non-personalized ads, but companies can't do whatever they want just because they make more money that way. I don't find it odd that laws can hamper the revenue of certain business models.
- JadeNB 7y ago
  > Thats an odd thing to say. Websites don't need to allow free access either. I can't comment on any particular revenue model but I imagine many websites chose personalized ads as they provide better revenue returns than non-personalized ads. Another way to get revenue, which doesn't itself transgress against these privacy-focused laws, is to charge directly for providing your service. That's totally legal! Well, but maybe some companies would find that they don't get enough subscribers to fund their business—then the solution, in a privacy-focused environment, is that those business don't exist, rather than that they get a shadow source of funding by accepting bribes for participating in scummy privacy violations. This would be a very different environment from the one in which we live—clearly better in some ways and clearly worse in others—but it's far from impossible.
  - bestnameever 7y ago
    > Another way to get revenue, which doesn't itself transgress against these privacy-focused laws, is to charge directly for providing your service. That's totally legal! Is that what the consumer wants? Also - is depriving services to those who aren't able to pay the fee to participate the right thing to do when they don't mind something like privacy focused advertisements? Judging by all the people unwilling to purchase Youtube Premium I would say no.
  - manigandham 7y ago
    Why are people not allowed to choose for themselves? Should we start banning what people can share on social media too for their own protection? Also not everyone can pay for content so you're punishing people who can least afford it by having direct payment be the only way forward. Privacy laws that remove freedom and opportunity aren't very good laws.
    - alkonaut 7y ago
      I absolutely think that site owners and visitors should not be allowed to enter an agreement where content is provided based on selling PII of the visitor. The reason is simple: the visitor can’t be properly made aware of what they are actually paying. So it should simply be banned. Yes, at the expense of maybe a majority of content online disappearing. And yes at the expense of people who can’t afford to pay for content in cash being denied it entirely.
      - manigandham 7y ago
        No thanks, that sounds absolutely terrible. I, and billions of others on the planet, prefer to make our own choices.
        Thiez 7y ago
        You are still allowed to consent to tracking cookies under the GDPR, so nothing has to change for you if you don't want it to. The difference is that you now have a choice, companies are no longer allowed to make that choice for you. What is so terrible about that?
manigandham 7y ago
Cookies and (wrongly considered) PII data like IP addresses are not only used for personalized ads. Contextual ads would also require them to function properly, which is an immediate "legitimate use" workaround.

alkonaut 7y ago

I pay for a subscription on one news site. I read dozens of sites, but I’m not going to allow being tracked if I can help it. I also don’t much care whether these sites survive or not, and I absolutely wouldn’t care if they disappeared because people behaved like me (answering no to tracking and/or using ad blockers). My thinking is that if everyone blocked tracking ads, then money would return to dumb ads (that now aren’t worth anything because of tracking/targeted ads). So I hope that’s the future. If it isn’t then I guess the less optimistic future is that half of all “free” content online disappears while the rest is concentrated in silos like Facebook and YouTube that can ensure eyes on ads. I think both futures are better than the status quo.