5 ms·

Good, keep it that way forever

by Beaver117 4y ago

riku_iki 4y ago
would you pay subscriptions instead?..
- yazzku 4y ago
  Ads are an enabler of bad products. If things required a subscription, half the shit on the Internet would be gone and for good reason. Also, often you get ads anyway regardless of the subscription. This is a false dichotomy.
- Beaver117 4y ago
  No, and I also use an adblocker
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- kingforaday 4y ago
  Interesting question. I probably would not, which might mean I would spend less time on the internet reading useless stuff and more time outside on my mountain bike.
  - cirrus3 4y ago
    There can be subscriptions and mountain bike riding at the same time you know.
- codalan 4y ago
  I do, and in some cases, I still get ads.
- salawat 4y ago
  Would you offer the option to?
  - riku_iki 4y ago
    services likely do studies to decide do they want to be ads based, or visitors are willing to pay for subscription.
    - falcolas 4y ago
      And then, historically, show ads to their subscribers. Cable, streaming video, etc.
      - version_five 4y ago
        Because advertisers pay more to reach people they know are willing to pay for stuff. It's whatever the opposite of a virtuous cycle is... a race to the bottom?
  - hedora 4y ago
    The conventional wisdom is that offering paid subscribers ad free experiences poisons the well for advertisers. After all, it eliminates the people that have enough disposable income to pay a nominal fee! Not sure how this translates to targeted ads. Would offering such a thing violate Google’s TOS?
- veb 4y ago
  There's a New Zealand Journalist, David Farrier (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Farrier https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Farrier) and I actually subscribe and pay a monthly fee to be able to view what he writes. I think he's really awesome (some will disagree) but I just like him. He also has a TV series on Netflix called Dark Tourist if you're able to see that. He has a new movie out at the moment that I really want to see, but his last movie Tickled was _crazy_ like... Tiger King type craziness. So yeah - if I know someone who actually puts in the work to give me quality output I'd pay for it. Just like I do now.
- Lutger 4y ago
  Yes, can I subscribe to the internet?
  - zaps 4y ago
    They have the internet on computers now
- ithinkso 4y ago
  would you not serve me ads if I did? All newspapers/magazines, VHS/DVDs, cable TVs etc. were are 'subscription' in the sense you had to pay for them. Ads were still there. If paying a subscription for websites was normalized then soon enough they would as well be filled with ads.
- version_five 4y ago
  Yes. But I wouldn't subscribe to "content" that is used as a minimum skeleton to hand ads on, and I include the google search engine in that definition. I'm happy to pay for something I value. Most web content I value at $0 and may browse opportunistically but I would never pay for it, including by looking at an ad or providing my email
- culi 4y ago
  I've spent hundreds of hours of my life contributing to Wikipedia pages and may spend hundreds more on open source projects. Capitalism has made us label any not immediately self-serving as illogical. We are not homo economicus
- encryptluks2 4y ago
  There is this concept of supporting people you like without them having to charge people. The more you can read upfront, the more you can make an impartial judgement if you actually like them. A lot of people subconsciously convince themselves that they like something just because they spent money on it. If I like a project or open source software that I use then I go support the developers. A lot of other types of arrangements are basically signing a contract waiving your rights before you've even had a chance to form an opinion.
- realusername 4y ago
  What's the difference? You already pay the ads on top of every product you buy making everything you buy more expensive, it's already a tax. The only difference I see is all the money on salaries and expenses related to ads is 100% a pure economic loss in the ad model. (Of course I'm only talking about the economics here, there's a lot of other bad side-effects of ads not covered here)

Good, keep it that way forever

riku_iki 4y ago

would you pay subscriptions instead?..

yazzku 4y ago
Ads are an enabler of bad products. If things required a subscription, half the shit on the Internet would be gone and for good reason. Also, often you get ads anyway regardless of the subscription. This is a false dichotomy.
Beaver117 4y ago
No, and I also use an adblocker
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
kingforaday 4y ago
Interesting question. I probably would not, which might mean I would spend less time on the internet reading useless stuff and more time outside on my mountain bike.
- cirrus3 4y ago
  There can be subscriptions and mountain bike riding at the same time you know.
codalan 4y ago
I do, and in some cases, I still get ads.
salawat 4y ago
Would you offer the option to?
- riku_iki 4y ago
  services likely do studies to decide do they want to be ads based, or visitors are willing to pay for subscription.
  - falcolas 4y ago
    And then, historically, show ads to their subscribers. Cable, streaming video, etc.
    - version_five 4y ago
      Because advertisers pay more to reach people they know are willing to pay for stuff. It's whatever the opposite of a virtuous cycle is... a race to the bottom?
- hedora 4y ago
  The conventional wisdom is that offering paid subscribers ad free experiences poisons the well for advertisers. After all, it eliminates the people that have enough disposable income to pay a nominal fee! Not sure how this translates to targeted ads. Would offering such a thing violate Google’s TOS?
veb 4y ago
There's a New Zealand Journalist, David Farrier (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Farrier https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Farrier) and I actually subscribe and pay a monthly fee to be able to view what he writes. I think he's really awesome (some will disagree) but I just like him. He also has a TV series on Netflix called Dark Tourist if you're able to see that. He has a new movie out at the moment that I really want to see, but his last movie Tickled was _crazy_ like... Tiger King type craziness. So yeah - if I know someone who actually puts in the work to give me quality output I'd pay for it. Just like I do now.
Lutger 4y ago
Yes, can I subscribe to the internet?
- zaps 4y ago
  They have the internet on computers now
ithinkso 4y ago
would you not serve me ads if I did? All newspapers/magazines, VHS/DVDs, cable TVs etc. were are 'subscription' in the sense you had to pay for them. Ads were still there. If paying a subscription for websites was normalized then soon enough they would as well be filled with ads.
version_five 4y ago
Yes. But I wouldn't subscribe to "content" that is used as a minimum skeleton to hand ads on, and I include the google search engine in that definition. I'm happy to pay for something I value. Most web content I value at $0 and may browse opportunistically but I would never pay for it, including by looking at an ad or providing my email
culi 4y ago
I've spent hundreds of hours of my life contributing to Wikipedia pages and may spend hundreds more on open source projects. Capitalism has made us label any not immediately self-serving as illogical. We are not homo economicus
encryptluks2 4y ago
There is this concept of supporting people you like without them having to charge people. The more you can read upfront, the more you can make an impartial judgement if you actually like them. A lot of people subconsciously convince themselves that they like something just because they spent money on it. If I like a project or open source software that I use then I go support the developers. A lot of other types of arrangements are basically signing a contract waiving your rights before you've even had a chance to form an opinion.
realusername 4y ago
What's the difference? You already pay the ads on top of every product you buy making everything you buy more expensive, it's already a tax. The only difference I see is all the money on salaries and expenses related to ads is 100% a pure economic loss in the ad model. (Of course I'm only talking about the economics here, there's a lot of other bad side-effects of ads not covered here)