3 ms·

I guarantee this idea won’t work. Despite the downsides, there’s not really anything better and more accessible than ads. If you want to end ads, create a pro

I guarantee this idea won’t work. Despite the downsides, there’s not really anything better and more accessible than ads. If you want to end ads, create a provably correct and robust system to know when a given person is looking at a given thing on a computer. Once you do that, then the attention directly can be monetized without ads (of course it will be used for ads mainly as that’s the main use case)

hughrr 5y ago
Not saying anything is better than charging for posts, dealing with adverts or most of social media content. People need to get used to their content being worth what it’s really worth: nothing! Content was only worth stuff when it was scarce.
- endisneigh 5y ago
  Content is worth stuff, just not to everyone, at the same time, at the same amount.
  - hughrr 5y ago
    This is the problem. At most it’s worth the least someone will pay for it which is almost nothing. The proportion of people who will pay for it won’t cover the operating costs of delivering the content.
    - endisneigh 5y ago
      There's no problem - ads exist which deliver revenue proportional to viewership which is a proxy to value-add.
Bancakes 5y ago
How will you deal with freeloaders who simply are not affected by ads?
- endisneigh 5y ago
  If you can uniquely identified users in a way that cannot be spoofed then you can remove freeloaders by any criteria you wish.
autoexec 5y ago
> Despite the downsides, there’s not really anything better and more accessible than ads. Ads may be a "better" way for a website owner to to make money, but they do nothing at all to promote quality content, or improve the quality of a platform. It's not as if "knowing what a person is looking at" does either of those things either. I think creating a platform for useful and engaging communities/communication and getting rich by exploiting your userbase are opposing interests and for major social media platforms the only reason they attempt to do the first thing is so that they can do the second.
- endisneigh 5y ago
  They’re really not. The problem with counter points like these is that it assumes people will create content for free. If money isn’t a motivator then ads aren’t necessary either way. If it is, ads again are really the only way that’s accessible. Ads to help promote quality content as implemented on most sites.
  - autoexec 5y ago
    > They’re really not. The problem with counter points like these is that it assumes people will create content for free. It's no assumption. Anyone who was around in the early days of the internet saw it happen over and over again with their own eyes. Even now people start internet forums, online groups, and passion projects with zero interest in making money off of it. I couldn't count the number of services I've seen start out that way. Some do reluctantly add ads later on to help cover expenses once the site/service gets too popular too afford (sometimes removing them again the moment it's no longer needed). Some get bought up by other companies who are only interested in making money. Some get abandoned or cave in to larger sites (reddit and facebook groups have killed off most of the small internet forums that used to thrive). Some are still around. The one thing we can absolutely say about the internet is that people will create content for it and will develop and maintain spaces for others to share that content. In between the ads every social media platform is filled with user generated content for which the creator was uncompensated in anything but internet points, shares, and likes. Reddit's moderators aren't paid to help maintain the communities that make Reddit money. Long before social media people flocked to Geocities, to usenet, and to IRC, and produced massive amounts of content without looking for a buck. Before that they'd dial into a BBS or participate in mailing lists. People want to be heard, to help share their passions, and to hear others. The internet was first and because it was thriving and growing ads, and then surveillance capitalism, showed up after the fact and infested it.

hughrr 5y ago

Not saying anything is better than charging for posts, dealing with adverts or most of social media content. People need to get used to their content being worth what it’s really worth: nothing! Content was only worth stuff when it was scarce.

endisneigh 5y ago
Content is worth stuff, just not to everyone, at the same time, at the same amount.
- hughrr 5y ago
  This is the problem. At most it’s worth the least someone will pay for it which is almost nothing. The proportion of people who will pay for it won’t cover the operating costs of delivering the content.
  - endisneigh 5y ago
    There's no problem - ads exist which deliver revenue proportional to viewership which is a proxy to value-add.

Bancakes 5y ago

How will you deal with freeloaders who simply are not affected by ads?

endisneigh 5y ago
If you can uniquely identified users in a way that cannot be spoofed then you can remove freeloaders by any criteria you wish.

autoexec 5y ago

> Despite the downsides, there’s not really anything better and more accessible than ads. Ads may be a "better" way for a website owner to to make money, but they do nothing at all to promote quality content, or improve the quality of a platform. It's not as if "knowing what a person is looking at" does either of those things either. I think creating a platform for useful and engaging communities/communication and getting rich by exploiting your userbase are opposing interests and for major social media platforms the only reason they attempt to do the first thing is so that they can do the second.

endisneigh 5y ago
They’re really not. The problem with counter points like these is that it assumes people will create content for free. If money isn’t a motivator then ads aren’t necessary either way. If it is, ads again are really the only way that’s accessible. Ads to help promote quality content as implemented on most sites.
- autoexec 5y ago
  > They’re really not. The problem with counter points like these is that it assumes people will create content for free. It's no assumption. Anyone who was around in the early days of the internet saw it happen over and over again with their own eyes. Even now people start internet forums, online groups, and passion projects with zero interest in making money off of it. I couldn't count the number of services I've seen start out that way. Some do reluctantly add ads later on to help cover expenses once the site/service gets too popular too afford (sometimes removing them again the moment it's no longer needed). Some get bought up by other companies who are only interested in making money. Some get abandoned or cave in to larger sites (reddit and facebook groups have killed off most of the small internet forums that used to thrive). Some are still around. The one thing we can absolutely say about the internet is that people will create content for it and will develop and maintain spaces for others to share that content. In between the ads every social media platform is filled with user generated content for which the creator was uncompensated in anything but internet points, shares, and likes. Reddit's moderators aren't paid to help maintain the communities that make Reddit money. Long before social media people flocked to Geocities, to usenet, and to IRC, and produced massive amounts of content without looking for a buck. Before that they'd dial into a BBS or participate in mailing lists. People want to be heard, to help share their passions, and to hear others. The internet was first and because it was thriving and growing ads, and then surveillance capitalism, showed up after the fact and infested it.