3 ms·

>I bet you are working for some ad company "Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing" https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.y

>I bet you are working for some ad company "Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing" https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html > most users are clueless, why should they be included? Privacy groups, average users and ad-tech companies aren't the only 3 groups of relevant parties. What about the millions of websites that run on advertisement. While the majority of HN would love to see ad-tech entirely disappear, the reality is that it pays for the majority of the web currently. I'm sure most websites wouldn't be happy seeing their ad-revenue slashed.

youngtaff 6y ago
> While the majority of HN would love to see ad-tech entirely disappear, the reality is that it pays for the majority of the web currently. I'm sure most websites wouldn't be happy seeing their ad-revenue slashed. This is the challenge, how do we pay sites for content? Trouble with the current ads market is vendors like Google, FB etc extract most of the value leaving little for publishers
- bozzcl 6y ago
  Personally, I think the Patreon model works great... except content creators charge too much for each tier. When you're subscribed to a hundred or more channels and want to compensate them for blocking their ads, $2 to $5 for each subscription adds up quick. In my case, I just overrode the Patreon subscription tier and limited each one to at most $1. I don't need exclusive Discord access and all that crap, it doesn't add too much value IMO. So if content providers had monthly contribution systems (or better integration with third-party ones) to make it easier for viewers to donate), and if content creators were more sensible about what they charge (say, start at $0.25 a month) I could see this getting better traction.
  - Griffinsauce 6y ago
    Spotify shows you the problem with this. People want access to "everything", that means dividing whatever they're comfortable paying by a massive amount, leaving crumbs for each creator except for the very biggest ones. I believe any system that tries to scale up to support every creator will have this problem and I suspect the core problem is that consumers want to consume more and pay less than is sustainable.
  - ehsankia 6y ago
    The thing is, even most creators who are on Patreon are actually indirectly relying on the ad-funded system currently. Most of these people you're referring to are probably Youtube or Twitch creators for example. But why do you think Youtube/Twitch let's them freely upload as much content as they want and have millions of people watch it all for free? You do realize than in an ad-free world, these creators would all have to pay to have their videos hosted in the first place, which is a huge barrier of entry before you even get enough followers to fund your content in the first place. The current variety and depth of creators we have wouldn't have been possible at all without free unlimited video hosting that Youtube has provided all this time. A non-ad-based internet will be filled with rich people who can afford to put their content out there and will cut out everyone else. It's basically like the finance world today, where the rich get richer and the poor can't get their foot in the door.

youngtaff 6y ago

> While the majority of HN would love to see ad-tech entirely disappear, the reality is that it pays for the majority of the web currently. I'm sure most websites wouldn't be happy seeing their ad-revenue slashed. This is the challenge, how do we pay sites for content? Trouble with the current ads market is vendors like Google, FB etc extract most of the value leaving little for publishers

bozzcl 6y ago
Personally, I think the Patreon model works great... except content creators charge too much for each tier. When you're subscribed to a hundred or more channels and want to compensate them for blocking their ads, $2 to $5 for each subscription adds up quick. In my case, I just overrode the Patreon subscription tier and limited each one to at most $1. I don't need exclusive Discord access and all that crap, it doesn't add too much value IMO. So if content providers had monthly contribution systems (or better integration with third-party ones) to make it easier for viewers to donate), and if content creators were more sensible about what they charge (say, start at $0.25 a month) I could see this getting better traction.
- Griffinsauce 6y ago
  Spotify shows you the problem with this. People want access to "everything", that means dividing whatever they're comfortable paying by a massive amount, leaving crumbs for each creator except for the very biggest ones. I believe any system that tries to scale up to support every creator will have this problem and I suspect the core problem is that consumers want to consume more and pay less than is sustainable.
- ehsankia 6y ago
  The thing is, even most creators who are on Patreon are actually indirectly relying on the ad-funded system currently. Most of these people you're referring to are probably Youtube or Twitch creators for example. But why do you think Youtube/Twitch let's them freely upload as much content as they want and have millions of people watch it all for free? You do realize than in an ad-free world, these creators would all have to pay to have their videos hosted in the first place, which is a huge barrier of entry before you even get enough followers to fund your content in the first place. The current variety and depth of creators we have wouldn't have been possible at all without free unlimited video hosting that Youtube has provided all this time. A non-ad-based internet will be filled with rich people who can afford to put their content out there and will cut out everyone else. It's basically like the finance world today, where the rich get richer and the poor can't get their foot in the door.