5 ms·

> The quid pro quo of the site is you pay nothing to see this, but you look at the ads that pay for the site. But this isn't the fucking model. The model is:

> The quid pro quo of the site is you pay nothing to see this, but you look at the ads that pay for the site. But this isn't the fucking model. The model is: We created compelling content that draws lots of views, and companies will pay us to plaster their name/products on it. There is literally zero contract with the person being shown the ads at all. They can do as they please. If companies don't like that... move to a different model - stop showing your stuff for free.

chii 4y ago
> move to a different model - stop showing your stuff for free. what if that model was a contract to the viewer, wherein the viewer agrees to see all adverts? Currently this contract is assumed, or implied, but not enforced. What if it changes in the future? For example, youtube could require that you have a webcam, and run a trusted-computing-module DRM code which forces your webcam to be on and recording your face to view their videos?
- mcv 4y ago
  It's not assumed or implied at all. Nobody has any inherent right to my attention. If a content producer gets advertisers to pay them, good for them, but that doesn't mean I have to look at those ads. > youtube could require that you have a webcam That would be the end of Youtube. But I'm pretty sure someone will write a plugin to work around that piece of dystopian hell.
  - blooalien 4y ago
    > "Nobody has any inherent right to my attention." Nor to your Internet bandwidth which you pay for and which on some providers is a (artificially) limited "resource" they'll charge you extra for if you use "too much" of it (unless they're like NetZero back in the day, delivering you free Internet in trade for forced adverts)… Nor to potentially compromise the security of your network (as has happened in the past due to some "shady" advertising networks delivering malware)… Nor to interfere with paid content (as happens on some streaming services which still show ads despite you paying to view the content).
- throwawayacc2 4y ago
  > For example, youtube could require that you have a webcam, and run a trusted-computing-module DRM code which forces your webcam to be on and recording your face to view their videos? I propose a mandatory integration with Alexa devices. Whenever the DRM module detects the consumer failing to fulfil the contractually required viewing quota, the Alexa device will be notified to emit loudly the message “Resume viewing!”. Furthermore, if available, it will cause the Hue lights to turn red and flash in order to amplify the gravity and importance of the message. In addition to the mandatory Alexa integration, I believe it is paramount advertisers be allowed to enforce contractual viewing quotas in order to prevent financial losses. To that end, failure to resume viewing within 30 seconds should result in immediate freezing of bank accounts, immediate blocking of the self driving car from working and immediate locking of the house smart lock - To prevent the consumer from escaping the contractually enforced duties. One more idea I can add is this. It is unfair for the advertisers to incur loss and costs due to non compliant consumers. In order to rectify these losses, interest in the form of viewing time should be applied to time spent not watching adverts. A standard 12.5% time interest should suffice. For example, a consumer failing to resume watching for 10 minutes should have 1 minute and 15 seconds added to the viewing quota.
- ridgered4 4y ago
  I believe Microsoft or Sony actually has a patent on this. It was the inspiration for the increasingly prescient 4chan greentext "drink a verification can".
- lelanthran 4y ago
  > what if that model was a contract to the viewer, wherein the viewer agrees to see all adverts? Currently this contract is assumed, or implied, but not enforced. What if it changes in the future? There is no contract; it's an open market and they are competing for my attention. There is no contract assumed, there is no contract implied, thus there is nothing to enforce. > but not enforced. What if it changes in the future? You make it sound like they didn't try. All those sites that attempted to "enforce"[1] this fictional contract you are referring to are not longer in existence, because there was no contract so the "enforcement" was merely user-abuse. [1] Lots of sites did their best to undermine adblockers, going so far as to disable the site if an adblocker was detected. Those sites no longer exist.
  - chii 4y ago
    > Those sites no longer exist. lots of sites that stop adblockers still exist - your sampling is probably biased if you don't see it. > You make it sound like they didn't try. Recently (or about a yr ago, cannot recall any more) twitch.tv stopped allowing adblockers from blocking their ad feeds in to the stream. It's an expensive method (injecting ad video stream into the livestream data - you cannot directly ignore the ad; at best you can blank it out and wait for the 30 seconds). Youtube didn't try. Youtube probably considers adblocking a small issue atm (just my guess), and likely a lot of views come from the mobile app, which is much harder to block ads on. Twitch is trying, and is pretty successful. It wouldn't surprise me that the method twitch uses might work elsewhere too.
- JohnFen 4y ago
  > Currently this contract is assumed, or implied No, it's not. Except perhaps by ad companies, but one side assuming a contract does not a contract make. > youtube could require that you have a webcam, and run a trusted-computing-module DRM code which forces your webcam to be on and recording your face to view their videos? Then I wouldn't watch YouTube anymore -- that's far too much to pay for something like YouTube.
robertlagrant 4y ago
I'm not sure if this adds anything. I know there's no contract. But while the system can shoulder a certain load of parasitic behaviour, if everyone does as you say then it stops working. So practically speaking it is a quid quo pro. A better analogue for your description is something like the Guardian website, where you don't have to pay for it, but it does require a certain number of people to volunteer to subscribe for it to work. Another different model is paywalls, which you may be correct in saying will pop up increasingly as use of ad blockers decreases ad revenue sufficiently.
- mmcgaha 4y ago
  I know there is a lot of push back against pay walls but I would rather give money to a business that I know than to have some creepy unknown entity record everything I do.
  - krapp 4y ago
    They're going to record everything you do anyway - the choice being offered is an illusion. There is no way to opt out of surveillance capitalism (other than blocking ads and piracy,) only ways to opt in further.
    - robertlagrant 4y ago
      Or don't visit the sites with it on. There's no way to opt out of state surveillance.
  - JohnFen 4y ago
    I used to feel that way, then I learned that paying (or even just signing up "for free") doesn't get you out of the spying they engage in. In fact, it makes the spying easier to do and more comprehensive.
  - robertlagrant 4y ago
    And that's fine, but for sites funded by advertising the answer is to not visit them.

chii 4y ago

> move to a different model - stop showing your stuff for free. what if that model was a contract to the viewer, wherein the viewer agrees to see all adverts? Currently this contract is assumed, or implied, but not enforced. What if it changes in the future? For example, youtube could require that you have a webcam, and run a trusted-computing-module DRM code which forces your webcam to be on and recording your face to view their videos?

mcv 4y ago
It's not assumed or implied at all. Nobody has any inherent right to my attention. If a content producer gets advertisers to pay them, good for them, but that doesn't mean I have to look at those ads. > youtube could require that you have a webcam That would be the end of Youtube. But I'm pretty sure someone will write a plugin to work around that piece of dystopian hell.
- blooalien 4y ago
  > "Nobody has any inherent right to my attention." Nor to your Internet bandwidth which you pay for and which on some providers is a (artificially) limited "resource" they'll charge you extra for if you use "too much" of it (unless they're like NetZero back in the day, delivering you free Internet in trade for forced adverts)… Nor to potentially compromise the security of your network (as has happened in the past due to some "shady" advertising networks delivering malware)… Nor to interfere with paid content (as happens on some streaming services which still show ads despite you paying to view the content).
throwawayacc2 4y ago
> For example, youtube could require that you have a webcam, and run a trusted-computing-module DRM code which forces your webcam to be on and recording your face to view their videos? I propose a mandatory integration with Alexa devices. Whenever the DRM module detects the consumer failing to fulfil the contractually required viewing quota, the Alexa device will be notified to emit loudly the message “Resume viewing!”. Furthermore, if available, it will cause the Hue lights to turn red and flash in order to amplify the gravity and importance of the message. In addition to the mandatory Alexa integration, I believe it is paramount advertisers be allowed to enforce contractual viewing quotas in order to prevent financial losses. To that end, failure to resume viewing within 30 seconds should result in immediate freezing of bank accounts, immediate blocking of the self driving car from working and immediate locking of the house smart lock - To prevent the consumer from escaping the contractually enforced duties. One more idea I can add is this. It is unfair for the advertisers to incur loss and costs due to non compliant consumers. In order to rectify these losses, interest in the form of viewing time should be applied to time spent not watching adverts. A standard 12.5% time interest should suffice. For example, a consumer failing to resume watching for 10 minutes should have 1 minute and 15 seconds added to the viewing quota.
ridgered4 4y ago
I believe Microsoft or Sony actually has a patent on this. It was the inspiration for the increasingly prescient 4chan greentext "drink a verification can".
lelanthran 4y ago
> what if that model was a contract to the viewer, wherein the viewer agrees to see all adverts? Currently this contract is assumed, or implied, but not enforced. What if it changes in the future? There is no contract; it's an open market and they are competing for my attention. There is no contract assumed, there is no contract implied, thus there is nothing to enforce. > but not enforced. What if it changes in the future? You make it sound like they didn't try. All those sites that attempted to "enforce"[1] this fictional contract you are referring to are not longer in existence, because there was no contract so the "enforcement" was merely user-abuse. [1] Lots of sites did their best to undermine adblockers, going so far as to disable the site if an adblocker was detected. Those sites no longer exist.
- chii 4y ago
  > Those sites no longer exist. lots of sites that stop adblockers still exist - your sampling is probably biased if you don't see it. > You make it sound like they didn't try. Recently (or about a yr ago, cannot recall any more) twitch.tv stopped allowing adblockers from blocking their ad feeds in to the stream. It's an expensive method (injecting ad video stream into the livestream data - you cannot directly ignore the ad; at best you can blank it out and wait for the 30 seconds). Youtube didn't try. Youtube probably considers adblocking a small issue atm (just my guess), and likely a lot of views come from the mobile app, which is much harder to block ads on. Twitch is trying, and is pretty successful. It wouldn't surprise me that the method twitch uses might work elsewhere too.
JohnFen 4y ago
> Currently this contract is assumed, or implied No, it's not. Except perhaps by ad companies, but one side assuming a contract does not a contract make. > youtube could require that you have a webcam, and run a trusted-computing-module DRM code which forces your webcam to be on and recording your face to view their videos? Then I wouldn't watch YouTube anymore -- that's far too much to pay for something like YouTube.

robertlagrant 4y ago

I'm not sure if this adds anything. I know there's no contract. But while the system can shoulder a certain load of parasitic behaviour, if everyone does as you say then it stops working. So practically speaking it is a quid quo pro. A better analogue for your description is something like the Guardian website, where you don't have to pay for it, but it does require a certain number of people to volunteer to subscribe for it to work. Another different model is paywalls, which you may be correct in saying will pop up increasingly as use of ad blockers decreases ad revenue sufficiently.

mmcgaha 4y ago
I know there is a lot of push back against pay walls but I would rather give money to a business that I know than to have some creepy unknown entity record everything I do.
- krapp 4y ago
  They're going to record everything you do anyway - the choice being offered is an illusion. There is no way to opt out of surveillance capitalism (other than blocking ads and piracy,) only ways to opt in further.
  - robertlagrant 4y ago
    Or don't visit the sites with it on. There's no way to opt out of state surveillance.
- JohnFen 4y ago
  I used to feel that way, then I learned that paying (or even just signing up "for free") doesn't get you out of the spying they engage in. In fact, it makes the spying easier to do and more comprehensive.
- robertlagrant 4y ago
  And that's fine, but for sites funded by advertising the answer is to not visit them.