5 ms·

Ads suck. I block them universally. I understand the desire to “get back at the man”, and I don’t begrudge anyone for doing so. But we have to ask ourselves, wh

by lumb63 4y ago

Ads suck. I block them universally. I understand the desire to “get back at the man”, and I don’t begrudge anyone for doing so. But we have to ask ourselves, what’s the real path forward, away from ads? If a different model existed where users could pay for sites, I’m confident some would use it. I’m also confident many more would not use it. I expect a lot of users unwittingly want to be able to browse the web ad-free, for free, subsidized by the tech-illiterate and those too lazy to block ads. We desperately need a better model for funding the internet. I’m aware of the work Brave did, but it doesn’t solve the problem of the internet being funded by ads. It instead brings users into the loop. Donations might work, and the “ad-free” subscription tier products seem sustainable. However, at scale, paying to waive ads on an individual site-by-site basis seems absurd. Does anyone have any other ideas?

prettyStandard 4y ago
I think brave has a good model, but normal cryptocurrency shenanigans taint the possibility.
Night_Thastus 4y ago
No ideas, but I agree. I personally view all forms of advertisement as a parasite or cancer on our eyes and ears. People disregard it as not that important, but I feel like it's way more impactful than most people think. It's constantly invading our spaces of work, casual enjoyment, transit, etc. It's a mental tax we're constantly paying.
chongli 4y ago
Does anyone have any other ideas? Public funding for a noncommercial web. Websites that sell things have no problem paying for themselves. The noncommercial web would be a place for people to socialize, share media from their lives, and enjoy their hobbies. Amateur radio is noncommercial. We should be able to have a similar regime on the web. It shouldn’t even really be that expensive to host. With peer to peer protocols there should be no need for paid hosting companies. Government could mandate that ISPs facilitate self hosting. With IPv6 every device should have static, publicly-routable IPs.
- dotancohen 4y ago
  So, government intervention then? I think that I dislike that no less than I dislike the current status quo.
  - prophesi 4y ago
    The actual status quo is Big Tech & ISP lobbyists having their way with any government intervention or lack thereof.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - mattigames 4y ago
    Everything needed for you to post that comment had to be heavily subsidized by your local government, almost every single piece of infrastructure involved, even the protocol itself was subsidized by the US government. It reminds me of that great quote: "Libertarians are like house cats, they naively believe in their fierceness and independence while being fully dependant in a system they don't understand or appreciate".
    - lumb63 4y ago
      Can you really blame libertarians for wanting a smaller government? Sure, the government subsidizes some useful activities, but more than half of US government tax dollars go to income redistribution or welfare programs.
      - creata 4y ago
        Sorry, I don't know anything about the US, but according to this one 2020 pie chart [1], 15% of the federal budget was spent on pensions/social security, and 12% was spent on welfare (the "Other" is "Agriculture, Energy, General Government Services, and International Affairs"). That doesn't add up to "more than half", so can you clarify? Edit: and, I suppose, it's a little weird to insinuate that welfare programs aren't "useful activities". [1]: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2020_Total_US_Government_Spending_Breakdown.png https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2020_Total_US_Govern...
itake 4y ago
I worked at an ad search company for local businesses. This question was raised at all hands: what if we provided a paid ad-free experience? The answer was simply: we earn $35/mo per user from ads. Do you think people pay that much for an ad-free experience? Our most valuable users might can afford that fee, but we earn way more from them.
- BizarroLand 4y ago
  Plus, how many ad companies are there? How many different people would we have to pay to browse without ads? How many companies, once the ad revenue dries up, would charge for content? How many would charge for content AND heavily lace their websites with ads? How expensive would the internet be if we had to directly pay for every website we wanted to use? Personally, I think the internet is worth the cost of access. I don't think sites are worth an additional premium on top of that.
nugget 4y ago
When ads are relevant and contextual enough, they become as good as or better than content. The problem isn't advertising. The problem is bad, mediocre, even malicious ads and ad formats. The proliferation of terrible ads and ad formats fueled the rise of adblock. Adblock is how users fight back. Adblock companies could collectively start to influence what ads are allowed through, but most attempts at this have been corrupted in the usual and predictable ways.
- adamrezich 4y ago
  I used to think this way too, back in like 2009, but the years since then have changed my mind back around to completely hating all advertising. when was the last time you saw a relevant, useful, unobnoxious, unobtrusive, just really great ad? I can't remember the last time I saw one.
  - dotancohen 4y ago
    I saw one for some tshirt company within the last year. Really nice, well-cut shirts. But their prices were ridiculous.
  - stevesearer 4y ago
    I think the ads we run on https://officesnapshots.com https://officesnapshots.com are good quality (we sell and host them). We have traditional banners as well as micro ads where we highlight and link to the specific products found in the office design project photos we publish. The latter are very helpful for designers in the industry as they are 100% contextual.
__MatrixMan__ 4y ago
I imagine a scheme that would socialize the burden of hosting and create a revenue stream for content creators. The revenue would come from those who paid up front for access and then didn't pull their weight re: hosting. --- 0. content-addressed data (e.g. IPFS) and a web of trust where trust means "not a bot, not a malicious human" 1. participants have a team number (0-255) 2. either participants are running a node, or they have a provider running one on their behalf. 3. every time your node requests data from another node by CID, it hashes the data twice (to get something other than the CID) and divides by 256. If the remainder is your team number, your node pins that data for a month. Otherwise it pins the data for 24h. 4. randomly, the nodes check to see if their neighbors are actually pinning the data they're supposed to, and make a naughty/nice list. 5. at the beginning of the month, participants put $10 into a smart contract, unless they have money left over from last month 6. at the end of the month, your node directs the contract to split $5 among the top 50% best citizens (re: pinning), paying nothing to the bottom 50% 7. your node also has kept track of which content you've requested. If you haven't +'d or -'d any content it just splits the other $5 evenly among the users who created the content that you requested. Otherwise it splits it according to your +'s and -'s. --- You can make money if your node is reliably helpful to its neighbors, or if you're a content creator. On the other hand, if you don't care to run a node, the contract ends up at $0 for you at the end of the month and you can just pay $10 again next month if you want access to the content. If you run a node but your internet connection is unreliable (or your node is offline), maybe you end up paying $8 per month because for 80% of your neighbors you were in the bottom 50% on the naughty/nice list Probably there's also reward money for people who sniff out bad actors and cause them to be excluded from the web of trust on the next go-around. In summary: reciprocity, with a little $ on the line to keep people honest. And since power corrupts, so it can't be managed by a corporate entity since the corruption would kick in before it got big enough to be "the" go-to place for content on the web--it's got to be a protocol without privileged roles.
vouaobrasil 4y ago
I have a different idea. I think ads can still exist, but in the form of more personalized sponsorships. For example, a company can send a person a product to try and then they can review it. That type of word of mouth is a bit less impersonal than a random ad and maybe we can even have models of trust so that the content creator is known for being objective. An example is Julian Krause on YouTube, who reviews audio gear. His reviews are so good and I feel he is very trustworthy based on what he says. In my mind, if companies get a few of their products out there and get people to talk about them, it's better than random advertising in several ways. The only downside to companies is that it doesn't rake in as much profit, but I think they can still be profitable, just not as much as they are. But then again, it'd be much better if we had a society where people bought things only if they really needed them, not if they are assaulted with ads left right and center. In my opinion, such a model is more along the lines of people buying things that really improve their life, rather than accumulating stuff because it seems in vogue. One consequence is that advertising companies like Google and Facebook will be vastly less profitable, and that's okay. Too much wealth is concentrated to them anyway, and their employees are vastly overpaid in comparison to the value they actually deliver to society.
kawogi 4y ago
I'd love to see a web standard for small donations via the browser. Whenever I see an article that helped me with a problem or was entertaining to read, I'd like to donate a small amount for it. At the moment I only have the following options: - clicking on ads on that page, to hopefully intirectly generate income for the author (but more likely will cause some profiling AI to wreak havoc on my reputation) - having a paid account upfront, which is usually connected with the entire site and not this specific article - create accounts for numerous payment and donation systems (patreon, paypal, buymeacoffee, ...) - manually reach out to the author and ask them for their bank connection. For me the perfect solution would be a browser-plugin, where I click on "Donate for this Article", enter an amount and maybe an optional comment and click "ok".
- mickotron 4y ago
  Isn’t Brave doing this?
  - rolenthedeep 4y ago
    Yeah, but it's crypto nonsense
narag 4y ago
If a different model existed where users could pay for sites... The devil is in the details. "If a different model existed where users could pay for tv shows..." and then Netflix, HBO, Amazon Prime, etc. came. I subscribed a bunch, the cancelled. Why? Different reasons, but in general: I wasn't able to really vote with my wallet. Shows that I liked very much got cancelled or, more often, degenerated horribly in subsequent seasons. So any kind of fine-grained payment would be greatly appreciated. Not only for web content, but also for any kind of media. I guess it would come with its own set of problems, trying too hard to content the public. But I feel that's better than the current situation, more on the top-down educating the unwashed masses.
tpoacher 4y ago
As with most bad things, the question isn't "ads vs no ads", it's "greed vs no greed". A website placing a well intended ad and being respectful of your experience and attention is fine. Dark patterns and Casual evil are not.
peterashford 4y ago
You know that the web existed before advertising?
Fatnino 4y ago
You can pump money into the system by buying adspace and just putting up pictures of cats or whatever. Either target them very carefully to always be shown to you, or better yet have them go out far and wide while you keep blocking ads on your devices guilt free.

by lumb63 4y ago

prettyStandard 4y ago

I think brave has a good model, but normal cryptocurrency shenanigans taint the possibility.

Night_Thastus 4y ago

No ideas, but I agree. I personally view all forms of advertisement as a parasite or cancer on our eyes and ears. People disregard it as not that important, but I feel like it's way more impactful than most people think. It's constantly invading our spaces of work, casual enjoyment, transit, etc. It's a mental tax we're constantly paying.

chongli 4y ago

Does anyone have any other ideas? Public funding for a noncommercial web. Websites that sell things have no problem paying for themselves. The noncommercial web would be a place for people to socialize, share media from their lives, and enjoy their hobbies. Amateur radio is noncommercial. We should be able to have a similar regime on the web. It shouldn’t even really be that expensive to host. With peer to peer protocols there should be no need for paid hosting companies. Government could mandate that ISPs facilitate self hosting. With IPv6 every device should have static, publicly-routable IPs.

dotancohen 4y ago
So, government intervention then? I think that I dislike that no less than I dislike the current status quo.
- prophesi 4y ago
  The actual status quo is Big Tech & ISP lobbyists having their way with any government intervention or lack thereof.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- mattigames 4y ago
  Everything needed for you to post that comment had to be heavily subsidized by your local government, almost every single piece of infrastructure involved, even the protocol itself was subsidized by the US government. It reminds me of that great quote: "Libertarians are like house cats, they naively believe in their fierceness and independence while being fully dependant in a system they don't understand or appreciate".
  - lumb63 4y ago
    Can you really blame libertarians for wanting a smaller government? Sure, the government subsidizes some useful activities, but more than half of US government tax dollars go to income redistribution or welfare programs.
    - creata 4y ago
      Sorry, I don't know anything about the US, but according to this one 2020 pie chart [1], 15% of the federal budget was spent on pensions/social security, and 12% was spent on welfare (the "Other" is "Agriculture, Energy, General Government Services, and International Affairs"). That doesn't add up to "more than half", so can you clarify? Edit: and, I suppose, it's a little weird to insinuate that welfare programs aren't "useful activities". [1]: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2020_Total_US_Government_Spending_Breakdown.png https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2020_Total_US_Govern...

itake 4y ago

I worked at an ad search company for local businesses. This question was raised at all hands: what if we provided a paid ad-free experience? The answer was simply: we earn $35/mo per user from ads. Do you think people pay that much for an ad-free experience? Our most valuable users might can afford that fee, but we earn way more from them.

BizarroLand 4y ago
Plus, how many ad companies are there? How many different people would we have to pay to browse without ads? How many companies, once the ad revenue dries up, would charge for content? How many would charge for content AND heavily lace their websites with ads? How expensive would the internet be if we had to directly pay for every website we wanted to use? Personally, I think the internet is worth the cost of access. I don't think sites are worth an additional premium on top of that.

nugget 4y ago

When ads are relevant and contextual enough, they become as good as or better than content. The problem isn't advertising. The problem is bad, mediocre, even malicious ads and ad formats. The proliferation of terrible ads and ad formats fueled the rise of adblock. Adblock is how users fight back. Adblock companies could collectively start to influence what ads are allowed through, but most attempts at this have been corrupted in the usual and predictable ways.

adamrezich 4y ago
I used to think this way too, back in like 2009, but the years since then have changed my mind back around to completely hating all advertising. when was the last time you saw a relevant, useful, unobnoxious, unobtrusive, just really great ad? I can't remember the last time I saw one.
- dotancohen 4y ago
  I saw one for some tshirt company within the last year. Really nice, well-cut shirts. But their prices were ridiculous.
- stevesearer 4y ago
  I think the ads we run on https://officesnapshots.com https://officesnapshots.com are good quality (we sell and host them). We have traditional banners as well as micro ads where we highlight and link to the specific products found in the office design project photos we publish. The latter are very helpful for designers in the industry as they are 100% contextual.

__MatrixMan__ 4y ago

I imagine a scheme that would socialize the burden of hosting and create a revenue stream for content creators. The revenue would come from those who paid up front for access and then didn't pull their weight re: hosting. --- 0. content-addressed data (e.g. IPFS) and a web of trust where trust means "not a bot, not a malicious human" 1. participants have a team number (0-255) 2. either participants are running a node, or they have a provider running one on their behalf. 3. every time your node requests data from another node by CID, it hashes the data twice (to get something other than the CID) and divides by 256. If the remainder is your team number, your node pins that data for a month. Otherwise it pins the data for 24h. 4. randomly, the nodes check to see if their neighbors are actually pinning the data they're supposed to, and make a naughty/nice list. 5. at the beginning of the month, participants put $10 into a smart contract, unless they have money left over from last month 6. at the end of the month, your node directs the contract to split $5 among the top 50% best citizens (re: pinning), paying nothing to the bottom 50% 7. your node also has kept track of which content you've requested. If you haven't +'d or -'d any content it just splits the other $5 evenly among the users who created the content that you requested. Otherwise it splits it according to your +'s and -'s. --- You can make money if your node is reliably helpful to its neighbors, or if you're a content creator. On the other hand, if you don't care to run a node, the contract ends up at $0 for you at the end of the month and you can just pay $10 again next month if you want access to the content. If you run a node but your internet connection is unreliable (or your node is offline), maybe you end up paying $8 per month because for 80% of your neighbors you were in the bottom 50% on the naughty/nice list Probably there's also reward money for people who sniff out bad actors and cause them to be excluded from the web of trust on the next go-around. In summary: reciprocity, with a little $ on the line to keep people honest. And since power corrupts, so it can't be managed by a corporate entity since the corruption would kick in before it got big enough to be "the" go-to place for content on the web--it's got to be a protocol without privileged roles.

vouaobrasil 4y ago

I have a different idea. I think ads can still exist, but in the form of more personalized sponsorships. For example, a company can send a person a product to try and then they can review it. That type of word of mouth is a bit less impersonal than a random ad and maybe we can even have models of trust so that the content creator is known for being objective. An example is Julian Krause on YouTube, who reviews audio gear. His reviews are so good and I feel he is very trustworthy based on what he says. In my mind, if companies get a few of their products out there and get people to talk about them, it's better than random advertising in several ways. The only downside to companies is that it doesn't rake in as much profit, but I think they can still be profitable, just not as much as they are. But then again, it'd be much better if we had a society where people bought things only if they really needed them, not if they are assaulted with ads left right and center. In my opinion, such a model is more along the lines of people buying things that really improve their life, rather than accumulating stuff because it seems in vogue. One consequence is that advertising companies like Google and Facebook will be vastly less profitable, and that's okay. Too much wealth is concentrated to them anyway, and their employees are vastly overpaid in comparison to the value they actually deliver to society.

kawogi 4y ago

I'd love to see a web standard for small donations via the browser. Whenever I see an article that helped me with a problem or was entertaining to read, I'd like to donate a small amount for it. At the moment I only have the following options: - clicking on ads on that page, to hopefully intirectly generate income for the author (but more likely will cause some profiling AI to wreak havoc on my reputation) - having a paid account upfront, which is usually connected with the entire site and not this specific article - create accounts for numerous payment and donation systems (patreon, paypal, buymeacoffee, ...) - manually reach out to the author and ask them for their bank connection. For me the perfect solution would be a browser-plugin, where I click on "Donate for this Article", enter an amount and maybe an optional comment and click "ok".

mickotron 4y ago
Isn’t Brave doing this?
- rolenthedeep 4y ago
  Yeah, but it's crypto nonsense

narag 4y ago

If a different model existed where users could pay for sites... The devil is in the details. "If a different model existed where users could pay for tv shows..." and then Netflix, HBO, Amazon Prime, etc. came. I subscribed a bunch, the cancelled. Why? Different reasons, but in general: I wasn't able to really vote with my wallet. Shows that I liked very much got cancelled or, more often, degenerated horribly in subsequent seasons. So any kind of fine-grained payment would be greatly appreciated. Not only for web content, but also for any kind of media. I guess it would come with its own set of problems, trying too hard to content the public. But I feel that's better than the current situation, more on the top-down educating the unwashed masses.

tpoacher 4y ago

As with most bad things, the question isn't "ads vs no ads", it's "greed vs no greed". A website placing a well intended ad and being respectful of your experience and attention is fine. Dark patterns and Casual evil are not.

peterashford 4y ago

You know that the web existed before advertising?

Fatnino 4y ago

You can pump money into the system by buying adspace and just putting up pictures of cats or whatever. Either target them very carefully to always be shown to you, or better yet have them go out far and wide while you keep blocking ads on your devices guilt free.