5 ms·

For me the first big disagreement begins with asking for what's the alternative. I don't think there needs to be an alternative. I think ads are largely respo

For me the first big disagreement begins with asking for what's the alternative. I don't think there needs to be an alternative. I think ads are largely responsible for the sorry state of the seo spammed web where finding what you want can be a complete nightmare. (It costs almost nothing to run a website, and if you spam enough ~zero cost sites loaded with ads and affiliate links, you can probably make a buck. This prospect just encourages spam and low effort sites.) I don't care one bit if ad supported sites just vanish, no need for an alternative. Yes please, clean up the web. What's left is the stuff that is worth enough for people to pay for.

discmonkey 5y ago
Just to add a little data from personal experience... About 4 years back I ran a small study in grad school where I was trying to find some alternative to ads. For a survey I basically asked "how much would you be willing to pay to view websites without ads". I bucketed the responses to something along the lines of greater than $1, $.75, $.5, $.25, $.01 or nothing. What I was (secretly) hoping was that people would be willing to pay something like a cent for a page view, since I was building a prototype for a more user friendly anti-adblocker, seeing that many websites started to deploy their own back then, and hating that there was no middle ground. However, what I found was that people were unwilling to pay anything for a page view. I think the author actually mentions this as a failed alternative model. Point being it really seems like people have decided/agreed that they prefer the ad model to anything else. Even if it means that the cost of serving ads is actually higher (in terms of bandwidth) than what it would cost to just pay a cent or two cents or whatever for pageviews.
- thrwaeasddsaf 5y ago
  > Point being it really seems like people have decided/agreed that they prefer the ad model to anything else. I'm not sure how you mean this but what you say comes dangerously close to implying that people want ads. That may be true if you force them into a false dichotomy (pay or have ads). I think it's more just that people don't want to pay. If it's on the web, they read it for free, period. If it's not on the web, then it isn't and they don't read it. If you look at it from this perspective, ads aren't even part of the discussion. I think people prefer the "someone pays for it" model to anything else. The dichotomy is only real if you construct a hypothetical scenario about some ad-or-paywall site that absolutely must exist and that people absolutely want to read and for which no alternative can emerge if that site stops existing.
  - joshuamorton 5y ago
    I think you're missing that content creators (whether they be small or large) need to be able to subsist off of their work. This is especially true if we want high quality content. So the dichotomy is only false if you assume people are willing to accept "stop consuming content" which, by and large, they aren't.
    - klelatti 5y ago
      How many content creators are fully supported by ads? All the material I read says that is probably the worst way of trying to earn a living as a content creator. Seems to me that creators are getting a dreadful deal from the current set up and that FB etc are the ones gaining massively.
      - OJFord 5y ago
        To all but one of the YouTubers I watch, I get the impression that anything it pays is at most secondary to them; they're not optimising for payout because they're not 'trying to earn a living'. Clough42 for example is a software engineer, and makes metalworking & 3D-printing videos that I enjoy watching; he certainly gets ad money (O(100ks) subscribers) but I'd guess he spends more on equipment, tools, etc. (and would despite the income) - certainly if you counted lost earnings from 'he could be doing contract work instead' - because that's not the point, it's a hobby, and a secondary hobby is putting it on YouTube for me (and millions of others) to enjoy. (I'm sort of hesitant to single someone out - especially someone who's probably on HN, heh - but I that's the impression I get anyway. If it's not totally true for him I'm sure it is for others.)
    - bnralt 5y ago
      The best content I get these days are from people who create content for free (hobbyists with personal sites, discussions on web forums, ad free podcasts, etc.). Getting rid of ads would make this content a lot easier to find, as it would get rid of all the SEO spam that clutters up the internet at the moment.
- version_five 5y ago
  I don't think you could expect people to start paying by page for the "content" on the web as it is now after 25 years of evolution under an ad funded model. People pay for an internet connection, and e.g. will pay more to get a faster connection or higher quota. There is value, its just not in the casual attention model that the ad driven internet has developed. Even the term "browser" implies how we interact with most content, and to me doesn't evoke "I'll pay by the page" A partial parallel is radio. Would you pay for local FM radio without ads? Unlikely, but some might pay for satellite radio because of the bundled content and national accessibility. And even more would pay for spotify. These are not just the old radio with ads swapped for direct cash, they provide something better. Paid internet will have to be the same.
elzbardico 5y ago
Ironically, nowadays it is becoming difficult even to find a specific product that you wanted to buy.
fomine3 5y ago
I never wish ad-supported content to be disappeared or behind paywall

discmonkey 5y ago

Just to add a little data from personal experience... About 4 years back I ran a small study in grad school where I was trying to find some alternative to ads. For a survey I basically asked "how much would you be willing to pay to view websites without ads". I bucketed the responses to something along the lines of greater than $1, $.75, $.5, $.25, $.01 or nothing. What I was (secretly) hoping was that people would be willing to pay something like a cent for a page view, since I was building a prototype for a more user friendly anti-adblocker, seeing that many websites started to deploy their own back then, and hating that there was no middle ground. However, what I found was that people were unwilling to pay anything for a page view. I think the author actually mentions this as a failed alternative model. Point being it really seems like people have decided/agreed that they prefer the ad model to anything else. Even if it means that the cost of serving ads is actually higher (in terms of bandwidth) than what it would cost to just pay a cent or two cents or whatever for pageviews.

thrwaeasddsaf 5y ago
> Point being it really seems like people have decided/agreed that they prefer the ad model to anything else. I'm not sure how you mean this but what you say comes dangerously close to implying that people want ads. That may be true if you force them into a false dichotomy (pay or have ads). I think it's more just that people don't want to pay. If it's on the web, they read it for free, period. If it's not on the web, then it isn't and they don't read it. If you look at it from this perspective, ads aren't even part of the discussion. I think people prefer the "someone pays for it" model to anything else. The dichotomy is only real if you construct a hypothetical scenario about some ad-or-paywall site that absolutely must exist and that people absolutely want to read and for which no alternative can emerge if that site stops existing.
- joshuamorton 5y ago
  I think you're missing that content creators (whether they be small or large) need to be able to subsist off of their work. This is especially true if we want high quality content. So the dichotomy is only false if you assume people are willing to accept "stop consuming content" which, by and large, they aren't.
  - klelatti 5y ago
    How many content creators are fully supported by ads? All the material I read says that is probably the worst way of trying to earn a living as a content creator. Seems to me that creators are getting a dreadful deal from the current set up and that FB etc are the ones gaining massively.
    - OJFord 5y ago
      To all but one of the YouTubers I watch, I get the impression that anything it pays is at most secondary to them; they're not optimising for payout because they're not 'trying to earn a living'. Clough42 for example is a software engineer, and makes metalworking & 3D-printing videos that I enjoy watching; he certainly gets ad money (O(100ks) subscribers) but I'd guess he spends more on equipment, tools, etc. (and would despite the income) - certainly if you counted lost earnings from 'he could be doing contract work instead' - because that's not the point, it's a hobby, and a secondary hobby is putting it on YouTube for me (and millions of others) to enjoy. (I'm sort of hesitant to single someone out - especially someone who's probably on HN, heh - but I that's the impression I get anyway. If it's not totally true for him I'm sure it is for others.)
  - bnralt 5y ago
    The best content I get these days are from people who create content for free (hobbyists with personal sites, discussions on web forums, ad free podcasts, etc.). Getting rid of ads would make this content a lot easier to find, as it would get rid of all the SEO spam that clutters up the internet at the moment.
version_five 5y ago
I don't think you could expect people to start paying by page for the "content" on the web as it is now after 25 years of evolution under an ad funded model. People pay for an internet connection, and e.g. will pay more to get a faster connection or higher quota. There is value, its just not in the casual attention model that the ad driven internet has developed. Even the term "browser" implies how we interact with most content, and to me doesn't evoke "I'll pay by the page" A partial parallel is radio. Would you pay for local FM radio without ads? Unlikely, but some might pay for satellite radio because of the bundled content and national accessibility. And even more would pay for spotify. These are not just the old radio with ads swapped for direct cash, they provide something better. Paid internet will have to be the same.

elzbardico 5y ago

Ironically, nowadays it is becoming difficult even to find a specific product that you wanted to buy.

fomine3 5y ago

I never wish ad-supported content to be disappeared or behind paywall