5 ms·

Nothing is free however. If advertisers can't violate one's privacy, that simply means they will pay less to the websites one uses, and that will lead to its q

Nothing is free however. If advertisers can't violate one's privacy, that simply means they will pay less to the websites one uses, and that will lead to its quality deteriorating, or even more extreme content filters to appease advertisers and remain afloat.

visarga 6y ago
You're assuming people won't create great things without ad profit. I submit Open Source and Wikipedia as evidence to the contrary. Not making a profit on the original creative act might lead to larger profits for society overall and indirect advantages to the original creators. And usually content created for profit is quite untrustworthy, I prefer content created out of passion. It's the ad based content creators who are lacking in diversity, not the passionate creators who go in deep the rabbit hole. Also, there's nothing wrong with ads, but they need to be topical to the content at hand, not targeted to users.
- Blikkentrekker 6y ago
  > You're assuming people won't create great things without ad profit. I submit Open Source and Wikipedia as evidence to the contrary. Not making a profit on the original creative act might lead to larger profits for society overall and indirect advantages to the original creators. Both examples you listed are products that are feasibly created by the many small contributors. Many products cannot feasibly be created in such a manner and rely on some manner of income to remain feasible. There are quite a few content creators that are capable of producing content because their efforts are supported by advertisement. It would be hard for them to operate on the many small contributions-model. > And usually content created for profit is quite untrustworthy, I prefer content created out of passion. Few men enjoy the luxury to devote so much time to their passions when other parts of their time are allocated to securing the income they need to feed themselves. > Also, there's nothing wrong with ads, but they need to be topical to the content at hand, not targeted to users. This situation would indeed benefit the visitor more; it would not benefit the advertiser, nor the middleman, nor the space where the advertisement stands.
  - CuriousSkeptic 6y ago
    > securing the income they need to feed themselves. I have a feeling that to some extent this part is made unnecessarily hard due to how the capitalistic economy insists on employing all available resources in “productive” pursuits of producing even more content... Perhaps not “content” all the time. But surely a lot of resources are spent towards wasteful, if not directly anti-productive, ends. Trading those for more leisure time might very well be a boon for economy
onion2k 6y ago
If advertisers can't violate one's privacy, that simply means they will pay less to the websites one uses.. Why? Businesses ad spend budgets aren't going to be reduced simply because ads no longer track people. The same amount of money will go to advertisers. So long as ad companies can deliver a better return than other forms of advertising that competes for those budgets the online ad companies will be fine.
- Blikkentrekker 6y ago
  Of course not. If advertisement be less capable of generating new customers, then it is less valuable. The amount of money one can sell an advert for to the advertiser is of course related to expected return value for the advertiser of that ad. If it be lower, due to less efficient targeting, then he will not be willing to pay as much for the same advertisement.
  - vijayr02 6y ago
    Or, alternatively, they will spend more (input) to produce the same amount of leads (output)? Practically, their margins shrink while the websites maintain revenue. To be clear, I'm not saying the above effect will definitely happen, only pointing out that other outcomes are possible. In practice it will be some combination of the two.
  - onion2k 6y ago
    The amount of money one can sell an advert for to the advertiser is of course related to expected return value for the advertiser of that ad. The value something provides is relative to other things you might buy instead. If I have an ad budget of $1m, and I can't spend it on targeted ads then I'm going to spend it on the next best thing - if that's non-targeted ads then websites will still get my $1m.
    - Blikkentrekker 6y ago
      You strangely assume that the advertisement budget will remain constant in a world where advertisement is less effective. The very reason that adverts are then worth less, is because advertisement budgets will go down, given that advertisements provide less return for their money.
hakfoo 6y ago
This is what sort of baffles me. Ad spend is not going down. Yet publisher revenue is stagnant or worse. Look at every media outlet scaling back and/or crying poverty. This is the gateway to most of the worst of the advertising ecosystem. Nobody WANTS sleazy/creepy/loud/excessive ads on their sites, because it's their brand being ran down in the end. But it's seen as the only way to keep their heads above water. I suspect the real story here is the growth of the middlemen and platforms. In 1990, when you called up your local newspaper and ordered a quarter-page ad for $50, the publisher got every cent of it. Now, you buy $50 of PPC ads, it gets routed through several layers of cross-selling and arbitrage, and $5 is actually distributed to publishers. I'm surprised nobody's built a mutually owned co-op ad network. That would allow the participants to recapture most of the value lost to third party intermediaries. With so much less revenue leakage, they could offer tamer adds that paid as well as the current 82 banners, full tracking, and a chumbox design.

visarga 6y ago

You're assuming people won't create great things without ad profit. I submit Open Source and Wikipedia as evidence to the contrary. Not making a profit on the original creative act might lead to larger profits for society overall and indirect advantages to the original creators. And usually content created for profit is quite untrustworthy, I prefer content created out of passion. It's the ad based content creators who are lacking in diversity, not the passionate creators who go in deep the rabbit hole. Also, there's nothing wrong with ads, but they need to be topical to the content at hand, not targeted to users.

Blikkentrekker 6y ago
> You're assuming people won't create great things without ad profit. I submit Open Source and Wikipedia as evidence to the contrary. Not making a profit on the original creative act might lead to larger profits for society overall and indirect advantages to the original creators. Both examples you listed are products that are feasibly created by the many small contributors. Many products cannot feasibly be created in such a manner and rely on some manner of income to remain feasible. There are quite a few content creators that are capable of producing content because their efforts are supported by advertisement. It would be hard for them to operate on the many small contributions-model. > And usually content created for profit is quite untrustworthy, I prefer content created out of passion. Few men enjoy the luxury to devote so much time to their passions when other parts of their time are allocated to securing the income they need to feed themselves. > Also, there's nothing wrong with ads, but they need to be topical to the content at hand, not targeted to users. This situation would indeed benefit the visitor more; it would not benefit the advertiser, nor the middleman, nor the space where the advertisement stands.
- CuriousSkeptic 6y ago
  > securing the income they need to feed themselves. I have a feeling that to some extent this part is made unnecessarily hard due to how the capitalistic economy insists on employing all available resources in “productive” pursuits of producing even more content... Perhaps not “content” all the time. But surely a lot of resources are spent towards wasteful, if not directly anti-productive, ends. Trading those for more leisure time might very well be a boon for economy

onion2k 6y ago

If advertisers can't violate one's privacy, that simply means they will pay less to the websites one uses.. Why? Businesses ad spend budgets aren't going to be reduced simply because ads no longer track people. The same amount of money will go to advertisers. So long as ad companies can deliver a better return than other forms of advertising that competes for those budgets the online ad companies will be fine.

Blikkentrekker 6y ago
Of course not. If advertisement be less capable of generating new customers, then it is less valuable. The amount of money one can sell an advert for to the advertiser is of course related to expected return value for the advertiser of that ad. If it be lower, due to less efficient targeting, then he will not be willing to pay as much for the same advertisement.
- vijayr02 6y ago
  Or, alternatively, they will spend more (input) to produce the same amount of leads (output)? Practically, their margins shrink while the websites maintain revenue. To be clear, I'm not saying the above effect will definitely happen, only pointing out that other outcomes are possible. In practice it will be some combination of the two.
- onion2k 6y ago
  The amount of money one can sell an advert for to the advertiser is of course related to expected return value for the advertiser of that ad. The value something provides is relative to other things you might buy instead. If I have an ad budget of $1m, and I can't spend it on targeted ads then I'm going to spend it on the next best thing - if that's non-targeted ads then websites will still get my $1m.
  - Blikkentrekker 6y ago
    You strangely assume that the advertisement budget will remain constant in a world where advertisement is less effective. The very reason that adverts are then worth less, is because advertisement budgets will go down, given that advertisements provide less return for their money.

hakfoo 6y ago

This is what sort of baffles me. Ad spend is not going down. Yet publisher revenue is stagnant or worse. Look at every media outlet scaling back and/or crying poverty. This is the gateway to most of the worst of the advertising ecosystem. Nobody WANTS sleazy/creepy/loud/excessive ads on their sites, because it's their brand being ran down in the end. But it's seen as the only way to keep their heads above water. I suspect the real story here is the growth of the middlemen and platforms. In 1990, when you called up your local newspaper and ordered a quarter-page ad for $50, the publisher got every cent of it. Now, you buy $50 of PPC ads, it gets routed through several layers of cross-selling and arbitrage, and $5 is actually distributed to publishers. I'm surprised nobody's built a mutually owned co-op ad network. That would allow the participants to recapture most of the value lost to third party intermediaries. With so much less revenue leakage, they could offer tamer adds that paid as well as the current 82 banners, full tracking, and a chumbox design.