5 ms·

I wrote a long, but low effort comment where my thesis was that I think it’s ok for companies to pay for your attention, but the problem is that they are paying

I wrote a long, but low effort comment where my thesis was that I think it’s ok for companies to pay for your attention, but the problem is that they are paying Google. I ended up reaching the conclusion that we should ban paying money for your attention, but I haven’t thought of better alternatives for businesses to grow or expand online yet. USPS becomes vehicle for junk mail Telco becomes vehicle for robocalls Television a ratio of value to ads that gets smaller and smaller Internet becomes vehicle for ad revenue All of these things are companies abusing communication platforms for your attention and we seemingly are never willing to pay more than advertisers are, maybe because by the time that decision happens folks move to the next platform. The meta thing is that the Internet is a meta platform and we can keep making new communication methods, but we are still stuck with Google.

travisgriggs 5y ago
> I ended up reaching the conclusion that we should ban paying money for your attention, but I haven’t thought of better alternatives for businesses to grow or expand online yet. I think western society struggles with banning things. But we've shown an aptitude for taxing vices. It's all about the money, right? Rather than banning, would taxing this economy achieve a compromised version of what you're seeking?
- guywhocodes 5y ago
  The problem is that if you tax it the government becomes incentivized to increase attention selling. If the money isn't destroyed you will end up in smaller scale corruption. One example that comes to mind is HK zoning fees and the government's increasing dependency there of.
  - travisgriggs 5y ago
    Maybe I'm being naive; I work with some peers who smoke habitually. They pay a hefty tax for their habit. I don't really see the government's incentive to keep them at it to collect more taxes happening. Is it super sneaky and I just don't see it?
    - warlog 5y ago
      Are you kidding? .gov made sure Phillip Morris could stay alive just to keep the taxes flowing.
    - zo1 5y ago
      I think for certain "unpalatable" vice taxes, the increase in revenue is usually not worth the bad publicity. But one example I can think of regarding cigarette taxes is the increase in smuggling they cause, and as a consequence a lot of "government action" to prevent said smuggling. What ends up happening then is you get to see a glimpse of the thinking not being "lets keep people from smoking" but rather more in terms of "lost revenue" or "tax money stolen by smugglers". On some level, if the tax is there to "discourage" people, then the fact that they're willing to buy "smuggled" goods to save a bit of money shows you that they're not discouraged enough and they're not your target audience.
    - MomoXenosaga 5y ago
      Smokers dying early saves the State a ton of money, they did the math on this. Getting people to stop smoking is about morality.
      - sofixa 5y ago
        Care to share the math? Prevailing opinion in Western Europe is that smokers cost a lot of money to the state and taxpayers due to them usually not dying directly but struggling with illnesses for years, which cost money to treat.
fauigerzigerk 5y ago
>I ended up reaching the conclusion that we should ban paying money for your attention I don't think that's either possible or desirable. Attention seeking would simply take on sneakier forms that are indistinguishable from legitimate distribution of information and protected free speech. Instead of somewhat independent ad funded publications, you would get publications that are owned by product companies (or political parties) themselves. The content they publish would be far more biased. Subscription based publications wouldn't stand a chance against those free and well funded company owned publications. Advertising is very annoying, but I think it can be more transparent than almost any other form of influencing people. Tracking for personalised advertising is an entirely separate issue. That's where I think a blanket ban could work.
- jka 5y ago
  Your reasoning is accurate; but doesn't most of what you're describing already occur _as well_? Often progress is about eliminating one large negative externality, only to discover that there are others to handle too. The 'submarine' type content you're referring to is somewhat addressed by trust networks, fact checking, link reputation, and various other techniques. One large question is whether we're ready for all of the economically-motivated actors to start shifting into that space. PS: You make a good point about transparency. It's nice that (at least the most honest) adverts are identified clearly as such. Could we have similar transparency in content? ("I wrote this because I'd been thinking about it after reading an article by X about Y yesterday, and here is the source)
  - fauigerzigerk 5y ago
    >but doesn't most of what you're describing already occur _as well_? I believe it would happen on a far greater scale, because it would be the only way to get the message across and competition from independent ad funded publishers would cease to exist. Today, it's more difficult for a product company to justify the expense of running their own large scale publishing and influencing operation because it would have to outcompete advertising in terms of effectiveness. People will always try to get other people's attention for their own gain. Trying to stop this is a quixotic endavour. I think we should regulate to limit the negative impact of this social constant, not try to stop it altogether. >Could we have similar transparency in content? Yes, I do think we could. But I also think that people would still prefer high quality if biased company bloggers to paying for expensive subscriptions. Don't forget that most subscription based publications show adverts to their subscribers as well. Without advertising, subscription prices would rise steeply.
Terretta 5y ago
> we seemingly are never willing to pay more than advertisers are On the contrary, users are consistently willing to pay more than advertisers when given the option. Problem is after a while, the advertisers and middle men eyeball all that ad-free content, and decide you’ll accept just a little advertising ... Next thing you know, you’re subscribing to ads.
- GuB-42 5y ago
  > On the contrary, users are consistently willing to pay more than advertisers when given the option. Problem is: there is a huge difference between paying even one cent and not paying. If you ask for $0.01, you will probably get the same result as asking for $0.10 or even a dollar. And if the only thing you have to offer is a mildly interesting blog post, no one will give you a dollar, so, if you want that cent per view, putting an ad is the only option. Micro transactions turned out to be largely a failure. Another option is to find an editor/platform that gives you a share of a larger subscription. But even then, most people don't want to pay. For example, the usual reaction when I mention YouTube Premium is "why would I pay for something free?". And it gives even more power to large platforms: YouTube can reasonably ask for $10/month given the amount of content, it is much harder for a small player. So what is the solution? Braved tried something with BAT, but it is still an ad-based solution, and I don't really trust it. Carriers tried it with the equivalent of premium-rate phone numbers. Governments suggested tax-based solutions, none of them convincing.

travisgriggs 5y ago

> I ended up reaching the conclusion that we should ban paying money for your attention, but I haven’t thought of better alternatives for businesses to grow or expand online yet. I think western society struggles with banning things. But we've shown an aptitude for taxing vices. It's all about the money, right? Rather than banning, would taxing this economy achieve a compromised version of what you're seeking?

guywhocodes 5y ago
The problem is that if you tax it the government becomes incentivized to increase attention selling. If the money isn't destroyed you will end up in smaller scale corruption. One example that comes to mind is HK zoning fees and the government's increasing dependency there of.
- travisgriggs 5y ago
  Maybe I'm being naive; I work with some peers who smoke habitually. They pay a hefty tax for their habit. I don't really see the government's incentive to keep them at it to collect more taxes happening. Is it super sneaky and I just don't see it?
  - warlog 5y ago
    Are you kidding? .gov made sure Phillip Morris could stay alive just to keep the taxes flowing.
  - zo1 5y ago
    I think for certain "unpalatable" vice taxes, the increase in revenue is usually not worth the bad publicity. But one example I can think of regarding cigarette taxes is the increase in smuggling they cause, and as a consequence a lot of "government action" to prevent said smuggling. What ends up happening then is you get to see a glimpse of the thinking not being "lets keep people from smoking" but rather more in terms of "lost revenue" or "tax money stolen by smugglers". On some level, if the tax is there to "discourage" people, then the fact that they're willing to buy "smuggled" goods to save a bit of money shows you that they're not discouraged enough and they're not your target audience.
  - MomoXenosaga 5y ago
    Smokers dying early saves the State a ton of money, they did the math on this. Getting people to stop smoking is about morality.
    - sofixa 5y ago
      Care to share the math? Prevailing opinion in Western Europe is that smokers cost a lot of money to the state and taxpayers due to them usually not dying directly but struggling with illnesses for years, which cost money to treat.

fauigerzigerk 5y ago

>I ended up reaching the conclusion that we should ban paying money for your attention I don't think that's either possible or desirable. Attention seeking would simply take on sneakier forms that are indistinguishable from legitimate distribution of information and protected free speech. Instead of somewhat independent ad funded publications, you would get publications that are owned by product companies (or political parties) themselves. The content they publish would be far more biased. Subscription based publications wouldn't stand a chance against those free and well funded company owned publications. Advertising is very annoying, but I think it can be more transparent than almost any other form of influencing people. Tracking for personalised advertising is an entirely separate issue. That's where I think a blanket ban could work.

jka 5y ago
Your reasoning is accurate; but doesn't most of what you're describing already occur _as well_? Often progress is about eliminating one large negative externality, only to discover that there are others to handle too. The 'submarine' type content you're referring to is somewhat addressed by trust networks, fact checking, link reputation, and various other techniques. One large question is whether we're ready for all of the economically-motivated actors to start shifting into that space. PS: You make a good point about transparency. It's nice that (at least the most honest) adverts are identified clearly as such. Could we have similar transparency in content? ("I wrote this because I'd been thinking about it after reading an article by X about Y yesterday, and here is the source)
- fauigerzigerk 5y ago
  >but doesn't most of what you're describing already occur _as well_? I believe it would happen on a far greater scale, because it would be the only way to get the message across and competition from independent ad funded publishers would cease to exist. Today, it's more difficult for a product company to justify the expense of running their own large scale publishing and influencing operation because it would have to outcompete advertising in terms of effectiveness. People will always try to get other people's attention for their own gain. Trying to stop this is a quixotic endavour. I think we should regulate to limit the negative impact of this social constant, not try to stop it altogether. >Could we have similar transparency in content? Yes, I do think we could. But I also think that people would still prefer high quality if biased company bloggers to paying for expensive subscriptions. Don't forget that most subscription based publications show adverts to their subscribers as well. Without advertising, subscription prices would rise steeply.

Terretta 5y ago

> we seemingly are never willing to pay more than advertisers are On the contrary, users are consistently willing to pay more than advertisers when given the option. Problem is after a while, the advertisers and middle men eyeball all that ad-free content, and decide you’ll accept just a little advertising ... Next thing you know, you’re subscribing to ads.

GuB-42 5y ago
> On the contrary, users are consistently willing to pay more than advertisers when given the option. Problem is: there is a huge difference between paying even one cent and not paying. If you ask for $0.01, you will probably get the same result as asking for $0.10 or even a dollar. And if the only thing you have to offer is a mildly interesting blog post, no one will give you a dollar, so, if you want that cent per view, putting an ad is the only option. Micro transactions turned out to be largely a failure. Another option is to find an editor/platform that gives you a share of a larger subscription. But even then, most people don't want to pay. For example, the usual reaction when I mention YouTube Premium is "why would I pay for something free?". And it gives even more power to large platforms: YouTube can reasonably ask for $10/month given the amount of content, it is much harder for a small player. So what is the solution? Braved tried something with BAT, but it is still an ad-based solution, and I don't really trust it. Carriers tried it with the equivalent of premium-rate phone numbers. Governments suggested tax-based solutions, none of them convincing.