4 ms·

problam with paying to stop ads is - the people most willing to pay to stop ads are richer than average and meta earns more from serving ads to them than they a

• freediverx 4y ago
  [dead]
• hyperbovine 4y ago
  That's a good point, I had never looked at it that way. But here's my counterpoint: the people willing to pay to stop seeing ads are the ones who are most hostile, and therefore least susceptible, to online advertising. I've been online since the early 90s and I could probably count on one hand the number of times I've intentionally clicked on an ad.
  • playingalong 4y ago
    Still, I guess you are not that certain how many times an ad has affected your subconscious and triggered some change in your commercial decisions later on. The whole brand awareness, etc.
• blehn 4y ago
  YouTube made 28bn in ad revenue and probably somewhere in the range of 5-10bn (and growing) in ad-free subscription revenue last year, so it's clearly a viable model even if what you say is partially true. That said, I'd argue that YouTube's content is far more valuable than Meta's, and its ads are far more intrusive, so the incentive to pay is much higher.