7 ms·

The founder's response to the article: Why users shouldn’t worry about ads on Telegram I read an article that cautioned users from switching to Telegram from

by josu 6y ago

The founder's response to the article: Why users shouldn’t worry about ads on Telegram I read an article that cautioned users from switching to Telegram from other apps, because "Telegram is going to introduce ads". This is misleading for at least 3 reasons: 1. There will be no ads in chats on Telegram. Users who rely on Telegram as a messaging app, not a social network, will never see ads. Private chats and group chats are and will always be ad-free. As I outlined in December, ads are being considered only in large one-to-many channels (like this one), which do not exist in any other messaging app. So users ditching older apps for Telegram won’t increase the number of ads in their lives. 2. User data will not be used to target ads. We believe that collecting private data from users to target ads the way WhatsApp-Facebook do is immoral. We like the approach of privacy-conscious services like DuckDuckGo: monetizing services without collecting information about users. So if we introduce ads in one-to-many-channels, they will be contextual – based on the topic of the channel, not targeted based on any user data. 3. We are fixing ads that are already here. In most markets, content creators on Telegram already monetize their content by selling promotional posts in their channels. This is a chaotic market with multiple third-party ad networks pushing intrusive ads that create a negative user experience. We want to fix this situation by offering a privacy-conscious alternative for channel owners. Users will be able to opt out of ads, but I do think that privacy-conscious ads are a good way for channel owners to monetize their efforts – as an alternative to donations or subscriptions, which we are also working to offer them. Our end goal is to establish a new class of content creators – one that is financially sustainable and free to choose the strategy that is best for their subscribers. Traditional social networks have exploited users and publishers for far too long with excessive data collection and manipulative algorithms. It’s time to change this. https://t.me/PavelDurovs/107 https://t.me/PavelDurovs/107

dillondoyle 6y ago
Would that be enough revenue? The article doesn't list yearly costs but implies it's a lot with $1bb in debt needed (also do they advertise at scale to fund growth? that would be big source of $ that would be worth the cost). Maybe if they really do grow 1:many channels to actually be competitive to FB products they could charge businesses for API access to provide customer support & empower company:1 user messaging. Kind of more like Twitter which doesn't have a ton of user data to target ads as well - though Twitter does allow audience matching, if Telegram allowed matching to user phones that would be valuable.
tomComb 6y ago
> User data will not be used to target ads. I actually prefer personalized (targeted) ads, as long as it is a company I trust with my data. And they generate more revenue so they would need fewer ads. I realize people will argue that they don't generate more revenue, but if that were true then how has this whole industry developed around them? By tossing out personalized ads we are throwing out the baby with the bathwater. And there are so many truly nasty things going on on the Internet, how has killing personalized ads become one of the defining battles of our times? Heck, even just looking at my ISP the list of nasty things they are doing without much push back or notice is scary.
- eptcyka 6y ago
  Most of the nasty things around the internet can be traced back to personalized ads.
  - tomComb 6y ago
    But again you are conflating the irresponsible handling of my personal data - eg. my ISP collects and sells my personal data without my authorization - with personalized ads. There are lots of companies that have a history of never selling, losing, leaking etc. their users' data, such as Apple & Google. So why is it one of the defining battles of our times to force Google etc. to show me less relevant (and therefore more) ads, versus, say, stopping my ISP from its obviously irresponsible practices?
    - eptcyka 6y ago
      Both of Apple and Google are leaking my data into prism. I don't care about ad personalization as much as I hate tracking. These are related, but not one and the same. I think personalized ads are overvalued and their price is driven up by either global conglomerates that are looking to make vast amounts of money from small margins or startups with VC cash to burn. I've never heard an organic business success story about adwords.
      - 6y ago
Ericson2314 6y ago
Those are the types of promises one should never trust profit-seaking enterprise to keep, though. The only way to to be accountable to users is to remove the profit motive, or charge a fee to use.
- brianacton 6y ago
  I agree.

by josu 6y ago

dillondoyle 6y ago

Would that be enough revenue? The article doesn't list yearly costs but implies it's a lot with $1bb in debt needed (also do they advertise at scale to fund growth? that would be big source of $ that would be worth the cost). Maybe if they really do grow 1:many channels to actually be competitive to FB products they could charge businesses for API access to provide customer support & empower company:1 user messaging. Kind of more like Twitter which doesn't have a ton of user data to target ads as well - though Twitter does allow audience matching, if Telegram allowed matching to user phones that would be valuable.

tomComb 6y ago

> User data will not be used to target ads. I actually prefer personalized (targeted) ads, as long as it is a company I trust with my data. And they generate more revenue so they would need fewer ads. I realize people will argue that they don't generate more revenue, but if that were true then how has this whole industry developed around them? By tossing out personalized ads we are throwing out the baby with the bathwater. And there are so many truly nasty things going on on the Internet, how has killing personalized ads become one of the defining battles of our times? Heck, even just looking at my ISP the list of nasty things they are doing without much push back or notice is scary.

eptcyka 6y ago
Most of the nasty things around the internet can be traced back to personalized ads.
- tomComb 6y ago
  But again you are conflating the irresponsible handling of my personal data - eg. my ISP collects and sells my personal data without my authorization - with personalized ads. There are lots of companies that have a history of never selling, losing, leaking etc. their users' data, such as Apple & Google. So why is it one of the defining battles of our times to force Google etc. to show me less relevant (and therefore more) ads, versus, say, stopping my ISP from its obviously irresponsible practices?
  - eptcyka 6y ago
    Both of Apple and Google are leaking my data into prism. I don't care about ad personalization as much as I hate tracking. These are related, but not one and the same. I think personalized ads are overvalued and their price is driven up by either global conglomerates that are looking to make vast amounts of money from small margins or startups with VC cash to burn. I've never heard an organic business success story about adwords.
    - 6y ago

Ericson2314 6y ago

Those are the types of promises one should never trust profit-seaking enterprise to keep, though. The only way to to be accountable to users is to remove the profit motive, or charge a fee to use.

brianacton 6y ago
I agree.