6 ms·

But then how long until I'm paying subscriptions and being spied on? It's kinda like how cable TV started with no commercials as a contrast to over-the-air TV,

But then how long until I'm paying subscriptions and being spied on? It's kinda like how cable TV started with no commercials as a contrast to over-the-air TV, and then quickly introduced them...

qzw 6y ago
I’m afraid it’s inevitable. If there’s a large enough audience, someone will be willing to pay to market to them. Almost no business will be able to say no to the money.
- narag 6y ago
  Netflix?
  - jon-wood 6y ago
    Are doubtless taking money for product placement, which while less irritating than cutting into the show for an ad break, is still marketing.
  - vinay_ys 6y ago
    Don't they do brand product placement in their shows and do cross-promotion campaigns with those brands?
  - claudeganon 6y ago
    Netflix invests massively in tracking how users engage with content on their platform. They’ll either sell these services down the road to third parties or become a kind of quasi-monopoly player doing this in the entertainment industry, like Google or Facebook.
  - qzw 6y ago
    Call me a pessimist, but I think Netflix will only be ad-free for as long as it is a competitive advantage. The day will come when that’s no longer true, and the ads will come. When their growth has stalled and they have raised prices as much as the market will bear, how long can they resist “free” ad money? Will their shareholders just let them leave it on the table?
- addicted 6y ago
  Ads are not the same thing as spying. One of the biggest problems with this whole discussion is that people, including those who should know better, are not making distinctions between ads based maybe on broad characteristics vs ads that are based on tracking every move you make across the internet, purchases in stores with credit cards, and micro targeting based on specific interests. With just ads you can place a direct value on how much people are willing to pay to not see them. Netflix does this. Hulu does this by offering 2 services, as free and and supported at different prices. Normal business practices should create a market that allows people who are willing to see ads and those who wish to pay more to be ad free to both be serviced. The problem right now with micro targeting and extreme spying is that you have a race to the bottom that has users paying for the services they use not through watching ads, or monetary payments but through data and information about themselves. That data is much more valuable than just for ads. It makes it extremely difficult for someone who isn’t the biggest player in a market to, for example, compete with the entrenched power. So it’s not just people watching creepy ads, but it also entrenches monopolies, and allows the likes of Google and Facebook to create new monopolies based on data they have gained from their existing monopolies. Ads are, if anything, the least problematic part about the spying and data collection because at least they are open and obvious to everyone. Google and Facebook do far more creepy things than what they do with the ads privately, but the largest uproar has been about ads simply because that’s the most transparent use of the crazy data collection practices.
  - Mediterraneo10 6y ago
    > distinctions between ads based maybe on broad characteristics vs ads that are based on tracking every move you make across the internet, purchases in stores with credit cards, and micro targeting based on specific interests. That very broad and general advertising of which you speak will only dwindle with time and therefore the distinction will not be a very useful one. Already ordinary billboards are being upgraded to smart billboards that can scan and identify the people walking by (facial recognition, Bluetooth, perhaps soon gait, etc.). The decline of print media means that we’re losing the one kind of advertising that can't hook into technology to track you.
  - m463 6y ago
0xcde4c3db 6y ago
Indeed. A paradox inherent to the notion of paying to avoid ads is that it identifies you as someone who has disposable income and is willing to spend it, i.e. someone who advertisers really want to target.
- tehjoker 6y ago
  Pretty much the only way to make it happen is a foundation that has it written into their incorporation documents that they will never take ads or government bans. The incentives are too strong, so the large corporations get to manipulate the development of technologies by dangling ad money. Ad money isn't innocuous. It's about control, because if the recipient were to do something an advertiser doesn't like, they pull the money... for example strong privacy/anti-advertising technologies. This desire to please the interests of large corporations leads to large scale conformity.
  - jopsen 6y ago
    If you feel that way, perhaps advertising should be prohibited by law. But having absolutely no ads might not be ideal (or realistic).
    - kovac 6y ago
      I don't think the problem is with ads. It's with personalised ads (or more specifically how they go about showing us personalised ads). A model where a site shows you a notice asking to opt in for personalised ads (otherwise show generic ads anyway) would be fine. But this means no site, no third party service should be allowed to track the user or collect data unless opted in.
    - indigochill 6y ago
      Fundamentally, advertisers just want good ad<->user alignment and the zeitgeist is to accomplish this with invasive tracking. However, it needn't (I think) necessarily be this way. What if, instead, we looked at the material on the page and said, "This is a blog post about Linux. Let's put our advertisements about sysadmin books/seminars here." Or provide the content creator with a library of ads that they can choose from (they will typically be incentivized to select the most effective ads by performance-based compensation). Maybe prioritize the sorting of those ads against keywords in the content. Essentially, as opposed to profiling the user, profile the content. And give content creators more control over the user experience to discourage sleazy ads and encourage ads creators actually want on their site. There's some optimism wrapped into this, so I look forward to someone popping my optimism bubble.
AdmiralAsshat 6y ago
Don't forget streaming now, too. I was a big fan of Pluto TV until it got purchased by Viacom or whomever. Now, just like cable TV, there are 800 channels going at any given moment, and all of them show their commercials at exactly the same time. I joke, but only partly, that there's not a jury in the country that would convict me if I murdered whoever instituted that change.
- srtjstjsj 6y ago
  Why do you think giving you what you are paying for justifies murder?
srtjstjsj 6y ago
"no ads" was never a selling point of cable. it's always been a balance of fees and ads.
- SubiculumCode 6y ago
  It was when I first heard about cable as a kid.
- pessimizer 6y ago
  This is not true. https://youtu.be/ZcDUttzlKLU?t=110 https://youtu.be/ZcDUttzlKLU?t=110 http://web.cecs.pdx.edu/~trent/ochs/lyrics/talking-pay-tv.html http://web.cecs.pdx.edu/~trent/ochs/lyrics/talking-pay-tv.ht...
- wyclif 6y ago
  Nope. When cable TV first became available in the US the primary selling point is that there were no ads at all, unlike the big three networks.
- misanthropian00 6y ago
  May I ask approximately how old you are?
elcritch 6y ago
I cancelled a subscription to the Economist because after paying about 10x more than other news sources their online website still showed obnoxious ads. That irked me. If I'm paying a premium for a service good news I want it without ads and digital is my primary viewing media. But I don't think many companies can resist double dipping.
xg15 6y ago
Also, subscriptions for software always have a kind of smell. I'm not paying for a service - the service is done by my PC via execution of the software (using my own power, storage and computing resources too, btw). So superficially, I'm paying for the permission to execute some software on my PC. It makes more sense if this is understood as paying to continuously keep the software up-to-date. But then, this would be the most honest thing to do: Request money for each update but let the user executive a particular version as long as they want.
- edoceo 6y ago
  This leads to the issue of users running the insecure versions of the software, then blaming the vendor. Why didn't v30 have all the security fixes of v40!?
  - xg15 6y ago
    Yeah, sorry, then how about we stop producing so many security vulnerabilities? Because otherwise, we will end up in a world where no running code can be older than a month and software that is not actively being developed as part of a profitable business is automatically dead. Code does not rot and can be copied arbitrary many times. Why do we bend over backwards to turn an abundant resource not just into a scarce but into an expiring resource?
- smt88 6y ago
  > But then, this would be the most honest thing to do: Request money for each update but let the user executive a particular version as long as they want. What software subscriptions don't work this way? The true desktop subscriptions, where you lose access to the software after you stop paying, seem to all offer the traditional alternative (pay once for the current version).

But then how long until I'm paying subscriptions and being spied on? It's kinda like how cable TV started with no commercials as a contrast to over-the-air TV, and then quickly introduced them...

qzw 6y ago

I’m afraid it’s inevitable. If there’s a large enough audience, someone will be willing to pay to market to them. Almost no business will be able to say no to the money.

narag 6y ago
Netflix?
- jon-wood 6y ago
  Are doubtless taking money for product placement, which while less irritating than cutting into the show for an ad break, is still marketing.
- vinay_ys 6y ago
  Don't they do brand product placement in their shows and do cross-promotion campaigns with those brands?
- claudeganon 6y ago
  Netflix invests massively in tracking how users engage with content on their platform. They’ll either sell these services down the road to third parties or become a kind of quasi-monopoly player doing this in the entertainment industry, like Google or Facebook.
- qzw 6y ago
  Call me a pessimist, but I think Netflix will only be ad-free for as long as it is a competitive advantage. The day will come when that’s no longer true, and the ads will come. When their growth has stalled and they have raised prices as much as the market will bear, how long can they resist “free” ad money? Will their shareholders just let them leave it on the table?
addicted 6y ago
Ads are not the same thing as spying. One of the biggest problems with this whole discussion is that people, including those who should know better, are not making distinctions between ads based maybe on broad characteristics vs ads that are based on tracking every move you make across the internet, purchases in stores with credit cards, and micro targeting based on specific interests. With just ads you can place a direct value on how much people are willing to pay to not see them. Netflix does this. Hulu does this by offering 2 services, as free and and supported at different prices. Normal business practices should create a market that allows people who are willing to see ads and those who wish to pay more to be ad free to both be serviced. The problem right now with micro targeting and extreme spying is that you have a race to the bottom that has users paying for the services they use not through watching ads, or monetary payments but through data and information about themselves. That data is much more valuable than just for ads. It makes it extremely difficult for someone who isn’t the biggest player in a market to, for example, compete with the entrenched power. So it’s not just people watching creepy ads, but it also entrenches monopolies, and allows the likes of Google and Facebook to create new monopolies based on data they have gained from their existing monopolies. Ads are, if anything, the least problematic part about the spying and data collection because at least they are open and obvious to everyone. Google and Facebook do far more creepy things than what they do with the ads privately, but the largest uproar has been about ads simply because that’s the most transparent use of the crazy data collection practices.
- Mediterraneo10 6y ago
  > distinctions between ads based maybe on broad characteristics vs ads that are based on tracking every move you make across the internet, purchases in stores with credit cards, and micro targeting based on specific interests. That very broad and general advertising of which you speak will only dwindle with time and therefore the distinction will not be a very useful one. Already ordinary billboards are being upgraded to smart billboards that can scan and identify the people walking by (facial recognition, Bluetooth, perhaps soon gait, etc.). The decline of print media means that we’re losing the one kind of advertising that can't hook into technology to track you.
- m463 6y ago

0xcde4c3db 6y ago

Indeed. A paradox inherent to the notion of paying to avoid ads is that it identifies you as someone who has disposable income and is willing to spend it, i.e. someone who advertisers really want to target.

tehjoker 6y ago
Pretty much the only way to make it happen is a foundation that has it written into their incorporation documents that they will never take ads or government bans. The incentives are too strong, so the large corporations get to manipulate the development of technologies by dangling ad money. Ad money isn't innocuous. It's about control, because if the recipient were to do something an advertiser doesn't like, they pull the money... for example strong privacy/anti-advertising technologies. This desire to please the interests of large corporations leads to large scale conformity.
- jopsen 6y ago
  If you feel that way, perhaps advertising should be prohibited by law. But having absolutely no ads might not be ideal (or realistic).
  - kovac 6y ago
    I don't think the problem is with ads. It's with personalised ads (or more specifically how they go about showing us personalised ads). A model where a site shows you a notice asking to opt in for personalised ads (otherwise show generic ads anyway) would be fine. But this means no site, no third party service should be allowed to track the user or collect data unless opted in.
  - indigochill 6y ago
    Fundamentally, advertisers just want good ad<->user alignment and the zeitgeist is to accomplish this with invasive tracking. However, it needn't (I think) necessarily be this way. What if, instead, we looked at the material on the page and said, "This is a blog post about Linux. Let's put our advertisements about sysadmin books/seminars here." Or provide the content creator with a library of ads that they can choose from (they will typically be incentivized to select the most effective ads by performance-based compensation). Maybe prioritize the sorting of those ads against keywords in the content. Essentially, as opposed to profiling the user, profile the content. And give content creators more control over the user experience to discourage sleazy ads and encourage ads creators actually want on their site. There's some optimism wrapped into this, so I look forward to someone popping my optimism bubble.

AdmiralAsshat 6y ago

Don't forget streaming now, too. I was a big fan of Pluto TV until it got purchased by Viacom or whomever. Now, just like cable TV, there are 800 channels going at any given moment, and all of them show their commercials at exactly the same time. I joke, but only partly, that there's not a jury in the country that would convict me if I murdered whoever instituted that change.

srtjstjsj 6y ago
Why do you think giving you what you are paying for justifies murder?

srtjstjsj 6y ago

"no ads" was never a selling point of cable. it's always been a balance of fees and ads.

SubiculumCode 6y ago
It was when I first heard about cable as a kid.
pessimizer 6y ago
This is not true. https://youtu.be/ZcDUttzlKLU?t=110 https://youtu.be/ZcDUttzlKLU?t=110 http://web.cecs.pdx.edu/~trent/ochs/lyrics/talking-pay-tv.html http://web.cecs.pdx.edu/~trent/ochs/lyrics/talking-pay-tv.ht...
wyclif 6y ago
Nope. When cable TV first became available in the US the primary selling point is that there were no ads at all, unlike the big three networks.
misanthropian00 6y ago
May I ask approximately how old you are?

elcritch 6y ago

I cancelled a subscription to the Economist because after paying about 10x more than other news sources their online website still showed obnoxious ads. That irked me. If I'm paying a premium for a service good news I want it without ads and digital is my primary viewing media. But I don't think many companies can resist double dipping.

xg15 6y ago

Also, subscriptions for software always have a kind of smell. I'm not paying for a service - the service is done by my PC via execution of the software (using my own power, storage and computing resources too, btw). So superficially, I'm paying for the permission to execute some software on my PC. It makes more sense if this is understood as paying to continuously keep the software up-to-date. But then, this would be the most honest thing to do: Request money for each update but let the user executive a particular version as long as they want.

edoceo 6y ago
This leads to the issue of users running the insecure versions of the software, then blaming the vendor. Why didn't v30 have all the security fixes of v40!?
- xg15 6y ago
  Yeah, sorry, then how about we stop producing so many security vulnerabilities? Because otherwise, we will end up in a world where no running code can be older than a month and software that is not actively being developed as part of a profitable business is automatically dead. Code does not rot and can be copied arbitrary many times. Why do we bend over backwards to turn an abundant resource not just into a scarce but into an expiring resource?
smt88 6y ago
> But then, this would be the most honest thing to do: Request money for each update but let the user executive a particular version as long as they want. What software subscriptions don't work this way? The true desktop subscriptions, where you lose access to the software after you stop paying, seem to all offer the traditional alternative (pay once for the current version).