5 ms·

I'm more curious about the question of 'who wants free content'. Because that's really the question here. Would I prefer everything in my life was free with no

I'm more curious about the question of 'who wants free content'. Because that's really the question here. Would I prefer everything in my life was free with no strings attached? Obviously. But youtube/news/reddit/facebook/literally any website needs to make money somehow, and non tracked ads pay rediculously lower amounts(90+%). So the real question is, would you trade what is essentially anonymous tracking (literally no one at Google gives a damn who you are, it's just a unique id fed into an algorithm) for content, or would you rather pay for each and every site on the internet?

nullc 3y ago
Your dichotomy ignores other possibilities. To what extent are we stuck on costly distribution models specifically because those are the ones you can tap for a revenue stream, to what extent are the costs driven by the monetization itself? I used to help out with the technical infrastructure for wikipedia and even as the 8th most trafficked site on the internet the cost was radically lower than that of some of my dayjob customers with comparable levels of traffic. A non-trivial part of the reason for that was that it didn't need all the surveillance and realtime per-request bespoke generation that advertisement encumbered services require. Part of it was just that there is an awful lot of fat in big commercial operations, since they have enough revenue that it's not a concern. Some is probably because when you're chasing ad dollars the extra spend required to get a 30 ms response instead of a 60ms response might be justified on the basis of the marginal clicks it generates, but those costs shouldn't properly be considered part of the underlying distribution costs. I think "yes, I'd be happy to pay for all of it" would be significantly more attractive if paying meant just the component of the cost that actually went to the authors of the material -- on the order of a hundredth of a cent per view. Here is $1, that'll cover the authors share of all my household's youtube viewing for the next several years.
neon_electro 3y ago
For me, personally, I invest enough time watching YouTube for Premium to be worth it solely to avoid ads.
- MathMonkeyMan 3y ago
  I'm told that this is how cable used to work. Ads aren't just a necessary annoyance that goes with no-fee products, it's a way to turn users into money and so will be with us no matter how much or little we're asked to pay.
xigoi 3y ago
Have you noticed that there are many people making cool stuff for free?
alkonaut 3y ago
I’m happy to enter any sort of transparent business transaction of information-for—content or money-for-content. But that’s not what the adtech web is, and that’s why it needs to die. I’d be absolutely delighted to see 99% of ad funded content and services wiped off the face of the web tomorrow, even if a lot of it is stuff I use and enjoy. Which is why I’m bullish on “nuclear options” for regulation such as binding DNT to GDPR, or making opt out default and not even allowing pop-up opt in, or suing a few large companies into bankruptcy for using consent dark pattens or other slight violations, just to make an example. Because it’s not that ads would be banned by that. It’s tracking and micro targeted ads. And while ads may be necessary to provide “free” services, we need to get away from the idea that the only ads worth showing are ones with precise targeting and advance led fraud countermeasures.

nullc 3y ago

Your dichotomy ignores other possibilities. To what extent are we stuck on costly distribution models specifically because those are the ones you can tap for a revenue stream, to what extent are the costs driven by the monetization itself? I used to help out with the technical infrastructure for wikipedia and even as the 8th most trafficked site on the internet the cost was radically lower than that of some of my dayjob customers with comparable levels of traffic. A non-trivial part of the reason for that was that it didn't need all the surveillance and realtime per-request bespoke generation that advertisement encumbered services require. Part of it was just that there is an awful lot of fat in big commercial operations, since they have enough revenue that it's not a concern. Some is probably because when you're chasing ad dollars the extra spend required to get a 30 ms response instead of a 60ms response might be justified on the basis of the marginal clicks it generates, but those costs shouldn't properly be considered part of the underlying distribution costs. I think "yes, I'd be happy to pay for all of it" would be significantly more attractive if paying meant just the component of the cost that actually went to the authors of the material -- on the order of a hundredth of a cent per view. Here is $1, that'll cover the authors share of all my household's youtube viewing for the next several years.

neon_electro 3y ago

For me, personally, I invest enough time watching YouTube for Premium to be worth it solely to avoid ads.

MathMonkeyMan 3y ago
I'm told that this is how cable used to work. Ads aren't just a necessary annoyance that goes with no-fee products, it's a way to turn users into money and so will be with us no matter how much or little we're asked to pay.

xigoi 3y ago

Have you noticed that there are many people making cool stuff for free?

alkonaut 3y ago

I’m happy to enter any sort of transparent business transaction of information-for—content or money-for-content. But that’s not what the adtech web is, and that’s why it needs to die. I’d be absolutely delighted to see 99% of ad funded content and services wiped off the face of the web tomorrow, even if a lot of it is stuff I use and enjoy. Which is why I’m bullish on “nuclear options” for regulation such as binding DNT to GDPR, or making opt out default and not even allowing pop-up opt in, or suing a few large companies into bankruptcy for using consent dark pattens or other slight violations, just to make an example. Because it’s not that ads would be banned by that. It’s tracking and micro targeted ads. And while ads may be necessary to provide “free” services, we need to get away from the idea that the only ads worth showing are ones with precise targeting and advance led fraud countermeasures.