4 ms·

The entire advertising industry should burn down, as far as I'm concerned. Advertising ruins every form of media it touches. From radio, television, newspapers

by imiric 4y ago

The entire advertising industry should burn down, as far as I'm concerned. Advertising ruins every form of media it touches. From radio, television, newspapers (it's arguably responsible for killing journalism), and now the internet, and all the services we use it for. Web search is useless because of it. Most websites are pretty much spyware. A large percentage of them are SEO spam, existing only to serve ads. Most content on YouTube, the largest video platform, is unwatchable due to constant ad breaks and sponsored content. Astroturfing is everywhere, promoted posts flood social media sites. Advertising is instrumental to spreading of disinformation, propaganda, toppling of democracies and companies like Cambridge Analytica. And if all that wasn't enough, _paid_ subscription services have started serving ads. It's the same business model from TV, but even more intrusive and lucrative since user tracking and microtargetting is now possible. Stop. Just stop. Users want none of this. Of course, everyone loves getting services for free, but what adtech companies are getting in exchange for user data now is worth much more than the "free" services they offer. *They should be paying us instead.* We need new business models that are as easy for content providers to implement, yet don't come at the expense of user experience, and don't cause services to deteriorate into a privacy nightmare. This should be easier nowadays with cryptocurrencies. I still think the Basic Attention Token[1] is a step in the right direction. Are there more examples of this? [1]: https://basicattentiontoken.org/ https://basicattentiontoken.org/

riku_iki 4y ago
> The entire advertising industry should burn down, as far as I'm concerned. but they perform important economy function: connect buyers and sellers..
- imiric 4y ago
  > but they perform important economy function: connect buyers and sellers.. Do they? I've never once clicked on an ad and made a purchase, and I'm a fairly regular consumer. If I have a need for a product, I'll search for it. All advertising does is create a false desire to own a product by psychologically manipulating the viewer. It is dishonest by definition. In order to make a purchase, I first have to have a need for a product. This should arise naturally, not via some artifically produced desire. Then I'd like to read the true specifications of all suitable products that I can find, and read hopefully real and honest reviews by people who've purchased them. After that, I will narrow down my search and will only make a purchase if I think a specific product will fulfill my needs. Advertising directly interferes with this concept, steps in as a middle man between buyer and seller, and introduces all kinds of psychological tricks to manipulate me to not even make the purchase--I just need to click on an ad, and I make the advertiser money. It is unnecessary at best, and outright harmful at worst.
  - riku_iki 4y ago
    > I've never once clicked on an ad and made a purchase, and I'm a fairly regular consumer. Companies track conversion rates from Ads, and since they still put money, it means Ads work for many cases.
- LawTalkingGuy 4y ago
  It feels like it's a race to the bottom where if it didn't exist everyone would be better off, but once it does exist everyone has to compete. Without ads we wouldn't pick products blindly we'd simply have more product-comparison sites.
  - riku_iki 4y ago
    > Without ads we wouldn't pick products blindly we'd simply have more product-comparison sites. and you would need ad to promote your product comparison site. And then we will go full circle with leading sites abusing their power, and manipulating search results.
nemothekid 4y ago
>Of course, everyone loves getting services for free, but what adtech companies are getting in exchange for user data now is worth much more than the "free" services they offer. They should be paying us instead. This solution is backwards; people should not only create content for you, but they should pay you for the privilege of having you enjoy it? It wasn't ads that killed journalism; it was the proliferation of free content that killed the funding for any kind of meaningful journalism. BAT isn't the right direction; they just tack on a crypto grift to make other people rich. I'd argue services like Netflix and Disney+ are the type of business models that work without ads, its just that people dont want to pay for content.
- imiric 4y ago
  > people should not only create content for you, but they should pay you for the privilege of having you enjoy it? I was specifically referring to "free" services from the likes of Google and Meta. The value they extract from user data is worth much more than the value users are getting from their services. Tech companies paying users isn't a novel idea[1]. For content providers I'm arguing that there should be new business models they can rely on that doesn't detract from the user experience. Patreon is also a good alternative. > BAT isn't the right direction; they just tack on a crypto grift to make other people rich. That's the cynical take, and, sure, I don't trust Brave Inc. either. That said, funding a crypto wallet from which I can selectively pay for the content I consume is a sound model, even if this specific implementation isn't ideal. > I'd argue services like Netflix and Disney+ are the type of business models that work without ads, its just that people dont want to pay for content. People are definitely paying for it. For a short while there a few years back, there was probably a reduction in pirated content. But large studios got greedy, enforced region locking even more, the market split up into dozens of similar services, and now consumers are expected to subscribe to many different streaming services to access content, which is exactly what we were trying to escape from TV by cord cutting. [1]: https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbestechcouncil/2020/10/30/should-tech-companies-be-paying-us-for-our-data/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbestechcouncil/2020/10/30/sh...
- scarface74 4y ago
  > Netflix and Disney+ are the type of business models that work without ads, its just that people dont want to pay for content You don’t see an issue with that statement?
czhu12 4y ago
Isn’t basic attention token based entirely on advertising?
- imiric 4y ago
  I'm not a Brave user, but from what I've read, users can choose to see ads and earn BAT, or they can fund their BAT wallet and opt out of ads altogether. And the ads don't seem to track the user or infringe on their privacy, so it's a substantial improvement over most adtech ads.
jeffbee 4y ago
Funnily enough, only Google is currently offering paid subscriptions that delete ads. All of their competitors are all-in on advertising. Google, by contrast, has that attention-respecting and affordable YouTube program that makes YouTube completely ad-free.
quickthrower2 4y ago
I think there is a very simple solution. It requires no technology, but it does require changing the culture of billions of people. And that solution is to make search a paid-for utility. People pay for their ISP, Electricity and Phone, but expect search for free. The problem is this would be less profitable for Google. Because advertising me a $10,000 computer at $10/1000 impressions that I will buy "for my company" is more profitable than me paying $10 a month for search. Therefore the solution might be to make Google a public service, perhaps owned my multiple governments around the world. Call me a dreamer! Downside to that might be tighter surveillance though :-( I don't see blockchain as a knight in shining armour here. Search is one of those hard things. Like sending a man to the moon. No one can compete overnight. Maybe the hope is AI could create a scenario where a search engine running locally is realistic (like all the prompt-based image generation stuff that has come out, can be run locally now).
- Tomte 4y ago
  > And that solution is to make search a paid-for utility. There's nothing making the search engine refrain from additional ads. Remember magazines? They were paid. And still had lots of ads.
  - quickthrower2 4y ago
    Yeah, anything paid can have ads. Cable TV springs to mind. Magazines. Even streaming services are thinking about it. If search becomes a utility, like water or natural gas, presumably there would be some limit to the advertising. I think the original Google results with ads on the right format is a good compromise. Because 2% of the time an ad is what you actually want, and those options are then presented still.

by imiric 4y ago

riku_iki 4y ago

> The entire advertising industry should burn down, as far as I'm concerned. but they perform important economy function: connect buyers and sellers..

imiric 4y ago
> but they perform important economy function: connect buyers and sellers.. Do they? I've never once clicked on an ad and made a purchase, and I'm a fairly regular consumer. If I have a need for a product, I'll search for it. All advertising does is create a false desire to own a product by psychologically manipulating the viewer. It is dishonest by definition. In order to make a purchase, I first have to have a need for a product. This should arise naturally, not via some artifically produced desire. Then I'd like to read the true specifications of all suitable products that I can find, and read hopefully real and honest reviews by people who've purchased them. After that, I will narrow down my search and will only make a purchase if I think a specific product will fulfill my needs. Advertising directly interferes with this concept, steps in as a middle man between buyer and seller, and introduces all kinds of psychological tricks to manipulate me to not even make the purchase--I just need to click on an ad, and I make the advertiser money. It is unnecessary at best, and outright harmful at worst.
- riku_iki 4y ago
  > I've never once clicked on an ad and made a purchase, and I'm a fairly regular consumer. Companies track conversion rates from Ads, and since they still put money, it means Ads work for many cases.
LawTalkingGuy 4y ago
It feels like it's a race to the bottom where if it didn't exist everyone would be better off, but once it does exist everyone has to compete. Without ads we wouldn't pick products blindly we'd simply have more product-comparison sites.
- riku_iki 4y ago
  > Without ads we wouldn't pick products blindly we'd simply have more product-comparison sites. and you would need ad to promote your product comparison site. And then we will go full circle with leading sites abusing their power, and manipulating search results.

nemothekid 4y ago

>Of course, everyone loves getting services for free, but what adtech companies are getting in exchange for user data now is worth much more than the "free" services they offer. They should be paying us instead. This solution is backwards; people should not only create content for you, but they should pay you for the privilege of having you enjoy it? It wasn't ads that killed journalism; it was the proliferation of free content that killed the funding for any kind of meaningful journalism. BAT isn't the right direction; they just tack on a crypto grift to make other people rich. I'd argue services like Netflix and Disney+ are the type of business models that work without ads, its just that people dont want to pay for content.

imiric 4y ago
> people should not only create content for you, but they should pay you for the privilege of having you enjoy it? I was specifically referring to "free" services from the likes of Google and Meta. The value they extract from user data is worth much more than the value users are getting from their services. Tech companies paying users isn't a novel idea[1]. For content providers I'm arguing that there should be new business models they can rely on that doesn't detract from the user experience. Patreon is also a good alternative. > BAT isn't the right direction; they just tack on a crypto grift to make other people rich. That's the cynical take, and, sure, I don't trust Brave Inc. either. That said, funding a crypto wallet from which I can selectively pay for the content I consume is a sound model, even if this specific implementation isn't ideal. > I'd argue services like Netflix and Disney+ are the type of business models that work without ads, its just that people dont want to pay for content. People are definitely paying for it. For a short while there a few years back, there was probably a reduction in pirated content. But large studios got greedy, enforced region locking even more, the market split up into dozens of similar services, and now consumers are expected to subscribe to many different streaming services to access content, which is exactly what we were trying to escape from TV by cord cutting. [1]: https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbestechcouncil/2020/10/30/should-tech-companies-be-paying-us-for-our-data/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbestechcouncil/2020/10/30/sh...
scarface74 4y ago
> Netflix and Disney+ are the type of business models that work without ads, its just that people dont want to pay for content You don’t see an issue with that statement?

czhu12 4y ago

Isn’t basic attention token based entirely on advertising?

imiric 4y ago
I'm not a Brave user, but from what I've read, users can choose to see ads and earn BAT, or they can fund their BAT wallet and opt out of ads altogether. And the ads don't seem to track the user or infringe on their privacy, so it's a substantial improvement over most adtech ads.

jeffbee 4y ago

Funnily enough, only Google is currently offering paid subscriptions that delete ads. All of their competitors are all-in on advertising. Google, by contrast, has that attention-respecting and affordable YouTube program that makes YouTube completely ad-free.

quickthrower2 4y ago

I think there is a very simple solution. It requires no technology, but it does require changing the culture of billions of people. And that solution is to make search a paid-for utility. People pay for their ISP, Electricity and Phone, but expect search for free. The problem is this would be less profitable for Google. Because advertising me a $10,000 computer at $10/1000 impressions that I will buy "for my company" is more profitable than me paying $10 a month for search. Therefore the solution might be to make Google a public service, perhaps owned my multiple governments around the world. Call me a dreamer! Downside to that might be tighter surveillance though :-( I don't see blockchain as a knight in shining armour here. Search is one of those hard things. Like sending a man to the moon. No one can compete overnight. Maybe the hope is AI could create a scenario where a search engine running locally is realistic (like all the prompt-based image generation stuff that has come out, can be run locally now).

Tomte 4y ago
> And that solution is to make search a paid-for utility. There's nothing making the search engine refrain from additional ads. Remember magazines? They were paid. And still had lots of ads.
- quickthrower2 4y ago
  Yeah, anything paid can have ads. Cable TV springs to mind. Magazines. Even streaming services are thinking about it. If search becomes a utility, like water or natural gas, presumably there would be some limit to the advertising. I think the original Google results with ads on the right format is a good compromise. Because 2% of the time an ad is what you actually want, and those options are then presented still.