5 ms·

> If nobody is willing to pay for your product, maybe it shouldn't exist? Hm, so you think it's better for the world for poor people to not have access to info

> If nobody is willing to pay for your product, maybe it shouldn't exist? Hm, so you think it's better for the world for poor people to not have access to information via tools like Google? I think the fact that you need to use emotionally loaded language like spyware to make your argument really detracts from it.

Nextgrid 4y ago
Advertisers aren't altruistic and don't voluntarily subsidise poor people's access; advertisers want to target people with money. Poor people being able to "freeload" is a side effect of imperfect ad targeting - if advertisers could reliably identify someone's financial standing without hurting conversion rates they'd absolutely do so and deny access to poor people. If nothing gets done against ad targeting and non-consensual data collection & processing it's likely that there will be a point that poor people will lose access to ad-supported content (despite said content being free to someone much richer).
- rpastuszak 4y ago
  > Advertisers aren't altruistic and don't voluntarily subsidise poor people's access; advertisers want to target people with money. Yes and no, since at the same time _almost everyone can be monetised_, just at a lower CPM. Everyone, almost everyone has _some_ money they could spend on useless crap. The goal of advertising is not to inform (or "connect people with the brands they love") but to create a need. This is not much different from poor people spending money on lotteries or in-app purchases in shitty mobile games.
  - Nextgrid 4y ago
    > just at a lower CPM Yes, but if you can accurately predict the CPM ahead of time (without hurting conversion rates for high-CPM users), you could deny service to those users whose CPM wouldn't cover costs or required profit margins. Of course, in reality the marginal cost of serving any given user is near-zero so ad-supported services are happy to serve just about anyone. That's why they'd survive just as well in an ad-less world as long as some minority of users is willing to pay.
- benlivengood 4y ago
  China's social credit score is the future GDPR is working to prevent. It's actually a bit worse for poor people; they don't get ignored by advertisers and instead are directly targeted for highly abusive lending practices (payday loans, rent to own, outright scams relying on desperation). There's an advertiser for every market segment. EDIT: I know the economic arguments for high interest loans, but the fact is that they trap poor people in a cycle of poverty. It's no good pointing out that people's long-term economic prospects are quantifiably terrible without using that as an argument for effective regulation and social safety nets to break the cycle.
  - astrange 4y ago
    > China's social credit score is the future GDPR is working to prevent. A government regulation can’t work to prevent another government regulation. Especially not in a parliamentary system that can change its own constitution. (Or just ignore its constitution like China does.)
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

Nextgrid 4y ago

Advertisers aren't altruistic and don't voluntarily subsidise poor people's access; advertisers want to target people with money. Poor people being able to "freeload" is a side effect of imperfect ad targeting - if advertisers could reliably identify someone's financial standing without hurting conversion rates they'd absolutely do so and deny access to poor people. If nothing gets done against ad targeting and non-consensual data collection & processing it's likely that there will be a point that poor people will lose access to ad-supported content (despite said content being free to someone much richer).

rpastuszak 4y ago
> Advertisers aren't altruistic and don't voluntarily subsidise poor people's access; advertisers want to target people with money. Yes and no, since at the same time _almost everyone can be monetised_, just at a lower CPM. Everyone, almost everyone has _some_ money they could spend on useless crap. The goal of advertising is not to inform (or "connect people with the brands they love") but to create a need. This is not much different from poor people spending money on lotteries or in-app purchases in shitty mobile games.
- Nextgrid 4y ago
  > just at a lower CPM Yes, but if you can accurately predict the CPM ahead of time (without hurting conversion rates for high-CPM users), you could deny service to those users whose CPM wouldn't cover costs or required profit margins. Of course, in reality the marginal cost of serving any given user is near-zero so ad-supported services are happy to serve just about anyone. That's why they'd survive just as well in an ad-less world as long as some minority of users is willing to pay.
benlivengood 4y ago
China's social credit score is the future GDPR is working to prevent. It's actually a bit worse for poor people; they don't get ignored by advertisers and instead are directly targeted for highly abusive lending practices (payday loans, rent to own, outright scams relying on desperation). There's an advertiser for every market segment. EDIT: I know the economic arguments for high interest loans, but the fact is that they trap poor people in a cycle of poverty. It's no good pointing out that people's long-term economic prospects are quantifiably terrible without using that as an argument for effective regulation and social safety nets to break the cycle.
- astrange 4y ago
  > China's social credit score is the future GDPR is working to prevent. A government regulation can’t work to prevent another government regulation. Especially not in a parliamentary system that can change its own constitution. (Or just ignore its constitution like China does.)

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]