3 ms·

Browser should behave in the best interest of the user. The best interest of the user in 99.99% of cases is not to see ads (which also come with associated trac

Browser should behave in the best interest of the user. The best interest of the user in 99.99% of cases is not to see ads (which also come with associated tracking, invasion of privacy, using your bandwidth - all things that the user did not ask for). What the user wants is content. So there are two scenarios: a) content is worth it so the user would pay to access it (for example $0.01 aka micropayments which browsers refuse to natively implement and automate; we can argue why in the light that all three mainstream browsers are directly or indirectly ad-supported and micropayments are an anti-thesis to ads) b) content is worth it and it is not behind a paywall (this is what most high quality content on the web is actually nowadays - wikipedia, hacker news or your own blog and blogs of many other people are examples) In the event that content is not worth it (which is sadly true for most ad/affiliate/tracking monetized content on the web today) the user should have these two options: a) not read it (probably best for them) b) have their browser block ads/tracking, to at least make it consumable and privacy respecting In other words the websites wanting to monetize their content should totally be in the position where they need to make that content good enough to be worth something to someone, otherwise why would humanity care about their existence?

jefftk 4y ago
> content is worth it so the user would pay to access it Users have very widely varying amounts of money. Universal paywalls would hit poorer readers far harder than richer ones. They would also push towards centralization via bundling. > micropayments which browsers refuse to natively implement and automate I have yet to see a good micropayments proposal, despite 25+y (https://www.w3.org/Conferences/WWW4/Papers/246/ https://www.w3.org/Conferences/WWW4/Papers/246/) of work on the project. Among other things, they tend to have similar privacy properties to third-party cookies ("third parties can learn every site you visit"). > content is worth it and it is not behind a paywall (this is what most high quality content on the web is actually nowadays - wikipedia, hacker news or your own blog and blogs of many other people are examples) Hacker News has ads (paid links on the front page for job openings), and Wikipedia has fundraising banners (which many adblockers block). My blog is funded just by me as a hobby project, yes, but most of what I (and I suspect you) read on the web isn't.
- freediver 4y ago
  > Users have very widely varying amounts of money. I really do not understand this argument. This is a fact of life. Isn't the price of gas affecting poorer citizens? Should we subsidize the gas with ads in you car? Isn't the price of housing affecting poorer citizens? Should we subsidize houses with ads on your walls? How abot having ads via an electrode in your brain 24/7 to get food for free? Where would this lead humanity? Having a price point is how 99% of world's economy works and it is completely normal that everyone can not buy everything, and that people have to budget and prioritise their expenses based on the perceived value they are getting. I am pretty sure that people would give up on 99% ad-supported content on the web quite easilly if it had even a $0.01 price point, because it is simply not worth it for most people (and not consuming it would arguably improve their lives too). > I have yet to see a good micropayments proposal, Or the simple answer is just unwillingness to implement because of conflict of interest. We went to the Moon in 8 years and micropayments are objectively a simpler problem. > Hacker News has ads (paid links on the front page for job openings), and Wikipedia has fundraising banners (which many adblockers block). I was not aware you can buy an ad on Hacker News. Source? Wikipedia example is different from what we are discussing, because for Wikipedia user=customer so they are selling their service to their users, for Google Search, Chrome Browser and most ad-supported websites user!=customer (customer there being an advertiser, introducing conflict of interest). > My blog is funded just by me as a hobby project, yes, but most of what I (and I suspect you) read on the web isn't. Most of the content I choose to read does not have ads. I do this consciously as I know that the content with ads will be lower quaility and probably not worth my time. This includes almost all news. "We are what we read" [1] and I am very careful about what content I put in my brain, like I am careful what food I put in my body. https://tinygem.org/about/#stopnews https://tinygem.org/about/#stopnews
  - jefftk 4y ago
    > Isn't the price of housing affecting poorer citizens? Housing is so expensive that advertising couldn't put an appreciable dent in it. But I don't have any sort of moral objection to some company renting out apartments that are a bit cheaper but have advertisements. (And I would be opposed to outlawing them if they existed) > I am pretty sure that people would give up on 99% ad-supported content on the web quite easilly if it had even a $0.01 price point, because it is simply not worth it for most people I think you would see that as well, but mostly because of friction, not because of willingness how much value people get out of things. > We went to the Moon in 8 years This cost the US a quarter of a trillion dollars, adjusted for inflation. This was a massive investment. Almost everything has received far less investment than that; no need to posit a conspiracy! If you think it is just a matter of implementation, I would love to see a link to a proposal you would endorse? > I was not aware you can buy an ad on Hacker News There's one in the front page right now: "UPchieve (EdTech Nonprofit, YC W21) is hiring senior engineers" > Most of the content I choose to read... I can believe this for you, though that you did not notice the ads here makes me wonder whether you might be missing tasteful ads elsewhere? But it's definitely not true for most people: a web without advertising funding is a web that the vast majority of people who currently use the web would enjoy much less.

jefftk 4y ago

> content is worth it so the user would pay to access it Users have very widely varying amounts of money. Universal paywalls would hit poorer readers far harder than richer ones. They would also push towards centralization via bundling. > micropayments which browsers refuse to natively implement and automate I have yet to see a good micropayments proposal, despite 25+y (https://www.w3.org/Conferences/WWW4/Papers/246/ https://www.w3.org/Conferences/WWW4/Papers/246/) of work on the project. Among other things, they tend to have similar privacy properties to third-party cookies ("third parties can learn every site you visit"). > content is worth it and it is not behind a paywall (this is what most high quality content on the web is actually nowadays - wikipedia, hacker news or your own blog and blogs of many other people are examples) Hacker News has ads (paid links on the front page for job openings), and Wikipedia has fundraising banners (which many adblockers block). My blog is funded just by me as a hobby project, yes, but most of what I (and I suspect you) read on the web isn't.

freediver 4y ago
> Users have very widely varying amounts of money. I really do not understand this argument. This is a fact of life. Isn't the price of gas affecting poorer citizens? Should we subsidize the gas with ads in you car? Isn't the price of housing affecting poorer citizens? Should we subsidize houses with ads on your walls? How abot having ads via an electrode in your brain 24/7 to get food for free? Where would this lead humanity? Having a price point is how 99% of world's economy works and it is completely normal that everyone can not buy everything, and that people have to budget and prioritise their expenses based on the perceived value they are getting. I am pretty sure that people would give up on 99% ad-supported content on the web quite easilly if it had even a $0.01 price point, because it is simply not worth it for most people (and not consuming it would arguably improve their lives too). > I have yet to see a good micropayments proposal, Or the simple answer is just unwillingness to implement because of conflict of interest. We went to the Moon in 8 years and micropayments are objectively a simpler problem. > Hacker News has ads (paid links on the front page for job openings), and Wikipedia has fundraising banners (which many adblockers block). I was not aware you can buy an ad on Hacker News. Source? Wikipedia example is different from what we are discussing, because for Wikipedia user=customer so they are selling their service to their users, for Google Search, Chrome Browser and most ad-supported websites user!=customer (customer there being an advertiser, introducing conflict of interest). > My blog is funded just by me as a hobby project, yes, but most of what I (and I suspect you) read on the web isn't. Most of the content I choose to read does not have ads. I do this consciously as I know that the content with ads will be lower quaility and probably not worth my time. This includes almost all news. "We are what we read" [1] and I am very careful about what content I put in my brain, like I am careful what food I put in my body. https://tinygem.org/about/#stopnews https://tinygem.org/about/#stopnews
- jefftk 4y ago
  > Isn't the price of housing affecting poorer citizens? Housing is so expensive that advertising couldn't put an appreciable dent in it. But I don't have any sort of moral objection to some company renting out apartments that are a bit cheaper but have advertisements. (And I would be opposed to outlawing them if they existed) > I am pretty sure that people would give up on 99% ad-supported content on the web quite easilly if it had even a $0.01 price point, because it is simply not worth it for most people I think you would see that as well, but mostly because of friction, not because of willingness how much value people get out of things. > We went to the Moon in 8 years This cost the US a quarter of a trillion dollars, adjusted for inflation. This was a massive investment. Almost everything has received far less investment than that; no need to posit a conspiracy! If you think it is just a matter of implementation, I would love to see a link to a proposal you would endorse? > I was not aware you can buy an ad on Hacker News There's one in the front page right now: "UPchieve (EdTech Nonprofit, YC W21) is hiring senior engineers" > Most of the content I choose to read... I can believe this for you, though that you did not notice the ads here makes me wonder whether you might be missing tasteful ads elsewhere? But it's definitely not true for most people: a web without advertising funding is a web that the vast majority of people who currently use the web would enjoy much less.