5 ms·

I would much rather pay than be tracked. Unfortunately many sites don't give me that choice.

sofixa 6y ago
Indeed, because for many of them the only option is ads, because almost nobody uses any alternatives ( the only one i know of is Web Monetization). Until it's massively used, few site owners will make the effort.
- bozzcl 6y ago
  So you're saying it's not worth trying moving in that direction, just because people don't use it now?
  - sofixa 6y ago
    Au contraire, i'm saying start using it now, and if enough people do, website owners will see the point in supporting it.
spoonjim 6y ago
This will never happen because the people who would pay the most to avoid targeted ad tracking are the ones who are the most valuable to advertisers (essentially, people able and willing to spend money). So when you see Facebook making $20 per user or whatever and think “I’d pay $20 to avoid being tracked,” it’s actually Facebook making nothing from a ton of users, a little from a bunch of them, and a huge amount from their “whales,” and the people willing to pay to avoid being tracked are most likely in the “whales.”
- minsc__and__boo 6y ago
  I would say with some subscription services you see the inverse of this - i.e. streaming media. IIRC youtube creators make more per view with subscribers than they do with ads, but I could be wrong.
throwaway3699 6y ago
Simple answer: The sum of all online marketing dollars is more than the sum of any amount of money people would pay for online content. That alone means direct payment will never replace ads. Most people are not reading The Financial Times or Bloomberg, they are reading rags like The Sun and Facebook gossip. I would love for that content to go away, but really, ad supported models work great for that demographic.
- izacus 6y ago
  Also both FT and Bloomberg are still filled up chalked full of trackers despite asking for money.
- coldpie 6y ago
  You're right, but there is a solution: make online marketing worthless. Install an ad blocker.
  - throwaway3699 6y ago
    I think you miss my point. Even if online advertising (as well as marketing, but that's a different concept) was completely worthless, the number of paid dollars would not go up, and the "total GDP" of the internet would go down. If that's a desired future we should be honest about it, but it's a future without as many independent journalists who can't afford a team to sell their content, for example.
  - jpalomaki 6y ago
    What is already happening is that ads get embedded in the content. Paid content, product placement, YouTubers pitching Audible book related to video.
ttt0 6y ago
I think I would be fine with paying too, but by paying you're giving up all of your personal information. Unless websites will suddenly start accepting something like Monero, I actually prefer to be tracked, as I can at least block it.

Indeed, because for many of them the only option is ads, because almost nobody uses any alternatives ( the only one i know of is Web Monetization). Until it's massively used, few site owners will make the effort.

bozzcl 6y ago
So you're saying it's not worth trying moving in that direction, just because people don't use it now?
- sofixa 6y ago
  Au contraire, i'm saying start using it now, and if enough people do, website owners will see the point in supporting it.

spoonjim 6y ago

This will never happen because the people who would pay the most to avoid targeted ad tracking are the ones who are the most valuable to advertisers (essentially, people able and willing to spend money). So when you see Facebook making $20 per user or whatever and think “I’d pay $20 to avoid being tracked,” it’s actually Facebook making nothing from a ton of users, a little from a bunch of them, and a huge amount from their “whales,” and the people willing to pay to avoid being tracked are most likely in the “whales.”

minsc__and__boo 6y ago
I would say with some subscription services you see the inverse of this - i.e. streaming media. IIRC youtube creators make more per view with subscribers than they do with ads, but I could be wrong.

throwaway3699 6y ago

Simple answer: The sum of all online marketing dollars is more than the sum of any amount of money people would pay for online content. That alone means direct payment will never replace ads. Most people are not reading The Financial Times or Bloomberg, they are reading rags like The Sun and Facebook gossip. I would love for that content to go away, but really, ad supported models work great for that demographic.

izacus 6y ago
Also both FT and Bloomberg are still filled up chalked full of trackers despite asking for money.
coldpie 6y ago
You're right, but there is a solution: make online marketing worthless. Install an ad blocker.
- throwaway3699 6y ago
  I think you miss my point. Even if online advertising (as well as marketing, but that's a different concept) was completely worthless, the number of paid dollars would not go up, and the "total GDP" of the internet would go down. If that's a desired future we should be honest about it, but it's a future without as many independent journalists who can't afford a team to sell their content, for example.
- jpalomaki 6y ago
  What is already happening is that ads get embedded in the content. Paid content, product placement, YouTubers pitching Audible book related to video.

ttt0 6y ago

I think I would be fine with paying too, but by paying you're giving up all of your personal information. Unless websites will suddenly start accepting something like Monero, I actually prefer to be tracked, as I can at least block it.