3 ms·

I work in the ad industry. I have some expertise both on witnessing the alleged decline and counter-acting it. Before anyone asks about my moral compass I do no

by zer8k 3y ago

I work in the ad industry. I have some expertise both on witnessing the alleged decline and counter-acting it. Before anyone asks about my moral compass I do not like ads, I never have, but they're an inevitability. The problems big ad tech face are unique and very hard especially w.r.t. to data. Anyway, ads are not dying. By and large ad quality is getting better. There are several companies that exist now to pre-screen ads for major websites (youtube being one of them) that specialize specifically in making sure not only the ads are relevant but also safe. You may see niche (gross) ads on places like 4chan. But on any major site you can be sure the ads have gone through several reviews not only for quality, but accuracy, and relevancy. As for the counter-acting part several companies specialize in guerilla advertising and this business is BOOMING. The author probably has no idea they are constantly being advertised on nearly every popular youtube video. There are so many ways we can slip ads in to someone's feed that you will not avoid it no matter what you do. What bothers me is the author of this video seems to think the internet can exist without ads. In it's current form it cannot. Every free service you use, every video you watch, etc would have to be paid in full otherwise. This is the definition of an information economy. The video goes on to whine and cry about how many ads are being shown on youtube, or how reddit torpedo'd stuff in the name of ads. The ONLY ALTERNATIVE is a paid solution. The author seems to be channeling the levels of undeserved hubris only Stallman can achieve. This is the fundamental problem of open source software only marginally reframed. A bunch of ivory tower morons talking about how software should be free but unwilling to help/donate/code to make it happen. Users of ad-powered websites are legitimately no different. So you have a fork in the road. Watch a couple ads occasionally to help fund the website you're leeching from or pay for the service. The video frustrates me especially because the industry itself is doing a lot of very hard work to drive relevant content to users. For example, you won't see an ad for clorox bleach on a sysop video. Nothing is getting worse. You are watching a system built on advertising revenue to provide a "free" experience degrading because the revenue is getting smaller. If you like the service turn your ad blocker off. If you cannot do that, you legitimately have no place to complain. You do not have to use these services. In the case of Youtube you can pay for the ad-free experience. I guess what I'm saying is: if you're a content leech watch a couple ads. If you're an OSS leech, consider donating :).

edmundsauto 3y ago
It’s also a matter of equity. The instant the cost moves off of “free”, hundreds of millions of people are excluded. Each person has to evaluate their own costs and benefits, but services that don’t charge offer value to the most poor at an unbeatable price.
- zer8k 3y ago
  To be fair, there is a dramatic difference between the free you are talking about and the free that youtube, facebook, etc are. It's one thing to offer a small website or something for free. It's another thing to power a million, or even billion, dollar infrastructure and the supporting staff on charity. It's part of the reason I drew a parallel to OSS. The "free" it is isn't free in the charitable sense. It's free in the sense, ideally, you should contribute something. In the case of ads - it's your eyes. The excluded group you are talking about would've been excluded anyway. Anything that isn't a charity and held up with volunteers and a lot of hard work will not be able to sustain them. That doesn't make it okay, necessarily, but rather that luxury services (of which youtube for example is one) are just that - a luxury. It's an take-a-penny-leave-a-penny but there are more takers than leavers. Something more familiar to us might be the Linux kernel. Without the support of all of the billions of dollars pouring in via corporations, support contracts, etc the free Linux kernel would likely either be dead or not free anymore. Even something with an army of volunteers at that caliber cannot sustain the poor people who benefit from their charity and contribute nothing in return. A tragedy, but the value producers have to eat, too.
  - skydhash 3y ago
    > It's free in the sense, ideally, you should contribute something. In the case of ads - it's your eyes. No, it's not. Either something is free or is not. Either I chose to pay or I don't. If it's not free and I choose to pay, I can enjoy the service. If I choose not to pay, they can refuse me. If it's free, and I pay (donate), good. If I decide not to pay, it's on you to bear the cost. I don't have any obligation to you. It's not mandatory to read, watch and listen to ads. And most people choose not to, or they tune out, especially when it's not related in any way to their current activity.

by zer8k 3y ago

edmundsauto 3y ago

It’s also a matter of equity. The instant the cost moves off of “free”, hundreds of millions of people are excluded. Each person has to evaluate their own costs and benefits, but services that don’t charge offer value to the most poor at an unbeatable price.

zer8k 3y ago
To be fair, there is a dramatic difference between the free you are talking about and the free that youtube, facebook, etc are. It's one thing to offer a small website or something for free. It's another thing to power a million, or even billion, dollar infrastructure and the supporting staff on charity. It's part of the reason I drew a parallel to OSS. The "free" it is isn't free in the charitable sense. It's free in the sense, ideally, you should contribute something. In the case of ads - it's your eyes. The excluded group you are talking about would've been excluded anyway. Anything that isn't a charity and held up with volunteers and a lot of hard work will not be able to sustain them. That doesn't make it okay, necessarily, but rather that luxury services (of which youtube for example is one) are just that - a luxury. It's an take-a-penny-leave-a-penny but there are more takers than leavers. Something more familiar to us might be the Linux kernel. Without the support of all of the billions of dollars pouring in via corporations, support contracts, etc the free Linux kernel would likely either be dead or not free anymore. Even something with an army of volunteers at that caliber cannot sustain the poor people who benefit from their charity and contribute nothing in return. A tragedy, but the value producers have to eat, too.
- skydhash 3y ago
  > It's free in the sense, ideally, you should contribute something. In the case of ads - it's your eyes. No, it's not. Either something is free or is not. Either I chose to pay or I don't. If it's not free and I choose to pay, I can enjoy the service. If I choose not to pay, they can refuse me. If it's free, and I pay (donate), good. If I decide not to pay, it's on you to bear the cost. I don't have any obligation to you. It's not mandatory to read, watch and listen to ads. And most people choose not to, or they tune out, especially when it's not related in any way to their current activity.