3 ms·

That's a response more to the title than the content of the article.

• 082349872349872 4y ago
  It's a response to both. Der Spiegel could allow unadvertised access to its subscribers, and untargeted access to the general public. Es könnte sein. Sure, "circulation" is not so well known, but was it ever exactly known for broadcast* television? free papers on trains? 50% of all advertising is worthless, anyway: to what extent do we have any idea that even fraud-detected CPM ever converts to actual sales? Why does anyone do "corporate identity" placement on PBS? Finally, I'd have no problems (hint: how many targeted placements do you see on this webiste?) if a certain percentage of the internet disappeared because it was not economic to continue it without targeted advertising "revenue". If the market speaks, then let the market speak. * my dorm was once a Nielsen household for a week or two. They were warned, but accepted 80 as our household size.
  • emodendroket 4y ago
    Nielsen ratings were a decent approximation and I would submit that the cost to print gave a certain incentive to try and get people to see the publication. With digital advertising it is easy to make many times more fake traffic than the site will ever have. To your other point, the "certain percentage" is most of it and we won't have all that much to discuss here.
    • 082349872349872 4y ago
      > most of it Maybe most of yours, not of mine. I'll miss YouTube, but not badly. (of the ~dozen other stories I've commented on today, only one would likely disappear: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34296560 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34296560 )
      • emodendroket 4y ago
        So what’s the problem? If you think ad-supported sites aren’t worth visiting then don’t.