2 ms·

https://www.jefftk.com/p/why-i-work-on-ads https://www.jefftk.com/p/why-i-work-on-ads

by jefftk 4y ago

freediver 4y ago
I read your article and you miss the third option for the user c) do not consume the content It is actually the best option for the user in most cases when ad-supported content is in question. The way it evolved over the years, the purpose of the content became not to inform the user, but to monetize their visit. As such it transformed from being intelligence amplifying to intelligence insulting (in general). Why? Because ad supported content tends to be of lower quality, produced en-masse, with inherent conflict of interest, clickbaity and poorly written (ads significantly contributed to detoriation of journalism globally), littered with ads to the point of being impossible to read and finally infested with tracking in the worst privacy-invasive ways. In the event you still want to access it, the best your browser can do is indeed to try to block all ads/tracking on the page. What this converges to is either the sites producing low quality content disappearing or them actually making it worthwhile for people to pay for. Both outcomes are good for humanity, where preserving the current state is bad.
- Thorrez 4y ago
  >As such it transformed from being intelligence amplifying to intelligence insulting The same thing happens with content supported through direct payments. Think video game streamers producing mindless content all day long, and asking for donations that allow viewers to get a flair next to their name or an in-stream callout of some chosen sentence. >ads significantly contributed to detoriation of journalism globally Ads have been in journalism for a long time. When would you say the deterioration happened?
  - freediver 4y ago
    > Think video game streamers producing mindless content all day long, and asking for donations that allow viewers to get a flair next to their name or an in-stream callout of some chosen sentence. You get what you pay for. If the product is mindless to begin with, I do not think this proves any point. It would be different if stream was paid to begin with. > Ads have been in journalism for a long time. You still paid for the newspaper, meaning an economic transactio happend where you valued the content at some price point and were ready to pay. That meant content had to pass at least some quality threshold. Replacing this with fully free, ad-supported content totally changed incentives. Now the content can be of zero value (which it in most cases is) and will still be consumed because it is free.

https://www.jefftk.com/p/why-i-work-on-ads https://www.jefftk.com/p/why-i-work-on-ads

by jefftk 4y ago

https://www.jefftk.com/p/why-i-work-on-ads https://www.jefftk.com/p/why-i-work-on-ads

I read your article and you miss the third option for the user c) do not consume the content It is actually the best option for the user in most cases when ad-supported content is in question. The way it evolved over the years, the purpose of the content became not to inform the user, but to monetize their visit. As such it transformed from being intelligence amplifying to intelligence insulting (in general). Why? Because ad supported content tends to be of lower quality, produced en-masse, with inherent conflict of interest, clickbaity and poorly written (ads significantly contributed to detoriation of journalism globally), littered with ads to the point of being impossible to read and finally infested with tracking in the worst privacy-invasive ways. In the event you still want to access it, the best your browser can do is indeed to try to block all ads/tracking on the page. What this converges to is either the sites producing low quality content disappearing or them actually making it worthwhile for people to pay for. Both outcomes are good for humanity, where preserving the current state is bad.

Thorrez 4y ago
>As such it transformed from being intelligence amplifying to intelligence insulting The same thing happens with content supported through direct payments. Think video game streamers producing mindless content all day long, and asking for donations that allow viewers to get a flair next to their name or an in-stream callout of some chosen sentence. >ads significantly contributed to detoriation of journalism globally Ads have been in journalism for a long time. When would you say the deterioration happened?
- freediver 4y ago
  > Think video game streamers producing mindless content all day long, and asking for donations that allow viewers to get a flair next to their name or an in-stream callout of some chosen sentence. You get what you pay for. If the product is mindless to begin with, I do not think this proves any point. It would be different if stream was paid to begin with. > Ads have been in journalism for a long time. You still paid for the newspaper, meaning an economic transactio happend where you valued the content at some price point and were ready to pay. That meant content had to pass at least some quality threshold. Replacing this with fully free, ad-supported content totally changed incentives. Now the content can be of zero value (which it in most cases is) and will still be consumed because it is free.