3 ms·

This is the trap Musk was trying to walk Twitter in to with pay to remove ads. Advertisers are paying a lot more to show ads to exactly the people that might p

by bagels 3y ago

This is the trap Musk was trying to walk Twitter in to with pay to remove ads. Advertisers are paying a lot more to show ads to exactly the people that might pay to remove ads, wealthy people, especially US people. The break even price for the subscription has to be much higher than the average revenue per user (globally ~1/10th of US revenue per user), and has to be higher than the average revenue for US users because of much higher advertising spend per user on that demographic.

praestigiare 3y ago
So in order to not see ads, I must outbid companies who want to show me ads against my wishes. And like any protection scheme, being willing to pay makes you a bigger target. This is why adblockers are the only moral choice.
- RestlessMind 3y ago
  I say the real moral choice is not to consume that content. Using adblockers is akin to stealing, just because you are not willing to pay the price providers want to charge you.
  - marssaxman 3y ago
    When youtube.com sends me an HTML file full of links to videos, I am stealing nothing by ignoring some of those links and only watching the videos I care about. I have no moral obligation to waste my time according to Google's preference.
    - acdha 3y ago
      You are freeloading no matter how much sophistry you try to cloak it with. They haven’t yet started enforcing their terms of service as strictly as they could but what you’re doing is no different from someone hopping the fare gate on a subway or bus and claiming it’s okay because the bus was going to run either way.
      - marssaxman 3y ago
        > You are freeloading no matter how much sophistry you try to cloak it with. I'm not trying to cloak anything - of course it's freeloading. So what? We're all freeloading, all the time, on all the millions of things millions people have made and given away over the internet. Google didn't make those videos they're sharing, after all - they got that stuff for free! If Google decides they no longer want to participate in the sharing economy, that's their business. > what you’re doing is no different from someone hopping the fare gate on a subway or bus There is no fare gate on this subway. There are no toll collectors; there are no tolls. Everyone rides for free. This transit network is paid for by the vendors running shops inside the stations, who hope to profit from the foot traffic. They can hope all they want that I will make purchases in their stores on my way to and from the train - but maybe I'm just not going to.
        acdha 3y ago
        > We're all freeloading, all the time, on all the millions of things millions people have made and given away over the internet. Google didn't make those videos they're sharing, after all - they got that stuff for free! This just isn't true. You're not freeloading if you use the service as designed – ad-supported services became predominant because that was the easiest way to reliably get enough revenue to run a business. Google pays roughly half of the ad revenue to people who make YouTube content, which may or may not be what you consider fair but it's definitely not free. > > what you’re doing is no different from someone hopping the fare gate on a subway or bus > There is no fare gate on this subway. That's the ads – the terms are that you either watch ads or pay directly. When you bypass the ads, you're breaking that arrangement and depriving everyone of the money they would otherwise have earned. Now, you can argue that they get enough anyway but that's exactly the logic that people use to hop a fare-gate trying to claim that all of the other passengers are taking care of the cost. If that's who you want to be, just admit it.
        marssaxman 3y ago
        > the terms are that you either watch ads or pay directly. When you bypass the ads, you're breaking that arrangement Well, that's where we differ: you think there's an arrangement, which obligates you to support Google's profit model, and I simply don't. I never agreed to any terms, and other people's businesses are not my responsibility. Do you feel obligated to buy a block of cheese after you eat the free sample on the tray at the grocery store?

by bagels 3y ago

praestigiare 3y ago

So in order to not see ads, I must outbid companies who want to show me ads against my wishes. And like any protection scheme, being willing to pay makes you a bigger target. This is why adblockers are the only moral choice.

RestlessMind 3y ago
I say the real moral choice is not to consume that content. Using adblockers is akin to stealing, just because you are not willing to pay the price providers want to charge you.
- marssaxman 3y ago
  When youtube.com sends me an HTML file full of links to videos, I am stealing nothing by ignoring some of those links and only watching the videos I care about. I have no moral obligation to waste my time according to Google's preference.
  - acdha 3y ago
    You are freeloading no matter how much sophistry you try to cloak it with. They haven’t yet started enforcing their terms of service as strictly as they could but what you’re doing is no different from someone hopping the fare gate on a subway or bus and claiming it’s okay because the bus was going to run either way.
    - marssaxman 3y ago
      > You are freeloading no matter how much sophistry you try to cloak it with. I'm not trying to cloak anything - of course it's freeloading. So what? We're all freeloading, all the time, on all the millions of things millions people have made and given away over the internet. Google didn't make those videos they're sharing, after all - they got that stuff for free! If Google decides they no longer want to participate in the sharing economy, that's their business. > what you’re doing is no different from someone hopping the fare gate on a subway or bus There is no fare gate on this subway. There are no toll collectors; there are no tolls. Everyone rides for free. This transit network is paid for by the vendors running shops inside the stations, who hope to profit from the foot traffic. They can hope all they want that I will make purchases in their stores on my way to and from the train - but maybe I'm just not going to.
      - acdha 3y ago
        > We're all freeloading, all the time, on all the millions of things millions people have made and given away over the internet. Google didn't make those videos they're sharing, after all - they got that stuff for free! This just isn't true. You're not freeloading if you use the service as designed – ad-supported services became predominant because that was the easiest way to reliably get enough revenue to run a business. Google pays roughly half of the ad revenue to people who make YouTube content, which may or may not be what you consider fair but it's definitely not free. > > what you’re doing is no different from someone hopping the fare gate on a subway or bus > There is no fare gate on this subway. That's the ads – the terms are that you either watch ads or pay directly. When you bypass the ads, you're breaking that arrangement and depriving everyone of the money they would otherwise have earned. Now, you can argue that they get enough anyway but that's exactly the logic that people use to hop a fare-gate trying to claim that all of the other passengers are taking care of the cost. If that's who you want to be, just admit it.
        marssaxman 3y ago
        > the terms are that you either watch ads or pay directly. When you bypass the ads, you're breaking that arrangement Well, that's where we differ: you think there's an arrangement, which obligates you to support Google's profit model, and I simply don't. I never agreed to any terms, and other people's businesses are not my responsibility. Do you feel obligated to buy a block of cheese after you eat the free sample on the tray at the grocery store?