3 ms·

The problem is that for YouTube to get that payment, I have to give them, and other ad networks a major view in to my whole life. Ad networks are currently scu

by wredue 3y ago

The problem is that for YouTube to get that payment, I have to give them, and other ad networks a major view in to my whole life. Ad networks are currently scum of the earth, easily giving lawyers a good name. If ad networks were riddled with crime, invasion of privacy, and other bullshit, people would be much more willing to entertain them. Today though, they’re obnoxious AND invade your privacy AND may actually just a virus AND are of questionable legality or outright illegal. It’s not just about funding the platform. You’re not “getting a service in exchange for payment”. Or at least, that is massively understating the behaviour of the scum of the earth ad networks.

gwd 3y ago
> The problem is that for YouTube to get that payment, I have to give them, and other ad networks a major view in to my whole life. Wait... does that mean, Google could offer "DoubleClick Premuim", where I pay to not see any DoubleClick ads whatsoever, anywhere on the web, but the websites I visited would still get their funding? I think I'd pay $10/mo for that.
- ndriscoll 3y ago
  Pay-per-view creates a perverse incentive to make SEO noise and make it more difficult to find what you want. You would be mostly paying to make your life worse. Better to just block ads, encourage and help others to block ads, and hope those sites die.
  - gwd 3y ago
    I certainly understand the perverse incentive, but that's already the incentive we're working under. And how do you propose we fairly compensate people for the value they've created when making content? How can we support artists, journalists, and so on to do the work that we enjoy? If everyone did as you suggest, spammy SEO sites will be the last to die, because the effort invested to make them is so much lower than the effort of quality content.
    - ndriscoll 3y ago
      If they're worthwhile and looking to be paid, you pay them. If they're not worth paying, they go out of business, and SNR improves. From what I've seen on youtube, almost all professional "content creators" make very shallow entertainment (or thinly veiled ads), which at least personally usually just makes me feel disappointed in myself for having wasted my time if I indulge.
    - matheusmoreira 3y ago
      > And how do you propose we fairly compensate people for the value they've created when making content? > How can we support artists, journalists, and so on to do the work that we enjoy? We either pay them before the work is completed or in an ongoing manner to support their activities. Patronage. Crowdfunding. Plenty of people seem to be achieving success via platforms like Patreon and GitHub Sponsors. This is ethical.
- matheusmoreira 3y ago
  Don't fall for that scam. If you pay for such a service, it only increases the value of your attention even further. You're clearly demonstrating you have enough disposable income to pay their extortion fees. It only makes them want sell to you even more. You're paying to segment the market for them. There is no context where a rational businessman would choose not to advertise to you. Someone will at some point realize they're leaving money on the table and the policy will be reverted. They have no limits. They'd put ads under our eyelids if they could. In our dreams. The only way to deal with such people is to block their ads unconditionally and with extreme prejudice.
  - gwd 3y ago
    > There is no context where a rational businessman would choose not to advertise to you. ...except, the businessman wanting to show me an advert doesn't have a choice. The website chose DoubleClick; I'm paying DoubleClick not to show me any ads. Websites that don't choose DoubleClick either get adblocked, or I avoid, thus making less money from me. There is some expected value that DoubleClick will get from me in the course of a month; that's not infinite, and if it's a reasonable fee (like, $12/mo) then they'll get a lot more from me than if I use an ad-blocker.
    - matheusmoreira 3y ago
      Then they realize you're paying about $150 a year to avoid ads. That fact alone increases the value of your attention. Thus you gotta pay them even more money to avoid ads. Which increases the value of your attention further. At some point the value exceeds what you're willing to pay and it's back to ads. Then they start selling your personal information to the highest bidder which includes the fact you have enough disposable income and a willingness to pay not to be bothered. The only possible outcome is rent seekers pouring out of the woodwork to try and grab a little of your sweet disposable income. The only way to deal with these people is to reduce their profits to zero, not come up with ways to increase them. We simply decide that ads are unacceptable and that's the end of it. They either adapt or die.
      - 3y ago
- paulryanrogers 3y ago
  Google Contributor did offer something like that for a while.
- nvm0n2 3y ago
  Google has repeatedly experimented with that. It always fails because the amount advertisers subsidize your internet experience is more like on the order of hundreds or thousands of dollars per month, not ten.
pohuing 3y ago
Yep I agree, the ad supported Internet was a mistake and we should never have stopped paying for the services we use. I just hope that these changes will increase people's willingness to pay, then other platforms who aren't owned by the largest ad broker might have a chance.

by wredue 3y ago

gwd 3y ago

> The problem is that for YouTube to get that payment, I have to give them, and other ad networks a major view in to my whole life. Wait... does that mean, Google could offer "DoubleClick Premuim", where I pay to not see any DoubleClick ads whatsoever, anywhere on the web, but the websites I visited would still get their funding? I think I'd pay $10/mo for that.

ndriscoll 3y ago
Pay-per-view creates a perverse incentive to make SEO noise and make it more difficult to find what you want. You would be mostly paying to make your life worse. Better to just block ads, encourage and help others to block ads, and hope those sites die.
- gwd 3y ago
  I certainly understand the perverse incentive, but that's already the incentive we're working under. And how do you propose we fairly compensate people for the value they've created when making content? How can we support artists, journalists, and so on to do the work that we enjoy? If everyone did as you suggest, spammy SEO sites will be the last to die, because the effort invested to make them is so much lower than the effort of quality content.
  - ndriscoll 3y ago
    If they're worthwhile and looking to be paid, you pay them. If they're not worth paying, they go out of business, and SNR improves. From what I've seen on youtube, almost all professional "content creators" make very shallow entertainment (or thinly veiled ads), which at least personally usually just makes me feel disappointed in myself for having wasted my time if I indulge.
  - matheusmoreira 3y ago
    > And how do you propose we fairly compensate people for the value they've created when making content? > How can we support artists, journalists, and so on to do the work that we enjoy? We either pay them before the work is completed or in an ongoing manner to support their activities. Patronage. Crowdfunding. Plenty of people seem to be achieving success via platforms like Patreon and GitHub Sponsors. This is ethical.
matheusmoreira 3y ago
Don't fall for that scam. If you pay for such a service, it only increases the value of your attention even further. You're clearly demonstrating you have enough disposable income to pay their extortion fees. It only makes them want sell to you even more. You're paying to segment the market for them. There is no context where a rational businessman would choose not to advertise to you. Someone will at some point realize they're leaving money on the table and the policy will be reverted. They have no limits. They'd put ads under our eyelids if they could. In our dreams. The only way to deal with such people is to block their ads unconditionally and with extreme prejudice.
- gwd 3y ago
  > There is no context where a rational businessman would choose not to advertise to you. ...except, the businessman wanting to show me an advert doesn't have a choice. The website chose DoubleClick; I'm paying DoubleClick not to show me any ads. Websites that don't choose DoubleClick either get adblocked, or I avoid, thus making less money from me. There is some expected value that DoubleClick will get from me in the course of a month; that's not infinite, and if it's a reasonable fee (like, $12/mo) then they'll get a lot more from me than if I use an ad-blocker.
  - matheusmoreira 3y ago
    Then they realize you're paying about $150 a year to avoid ads. That fact alone increases the value of your attention. Thus you gotta pay them even more money to avoid ads. Which increases the value of your attention further. At some point the value exceeds what you're willing to pay and it's back to ads. Then they start selling your personal information to the highest bidder which includes the fact you have enough disposable income and a willingness to pay not to be bothered. The only possible outcome is rent seekers pouring out of the woodwork to try and grab a little of your sweet disposable income. The only way to deal with these people is to reduce their profits to zero, not come up with ways to increase them. We simply decide that ads are unacceptable and that's the end of it. They either adapt or die.
    - 3y ago
paulryanrogers 3y ago
Google Contributor did offer something like that for a while.
nvm0n2 3y ago
Google has repeatedly experimented with that. It always fails because the amount advertisers subsidize your internet experience is more like on the order of hundreds or thousands of dollars per month, not ten.

pohuing 3y ago

Yep I agree, the ad supported Internet was a mistake and we should never have stopped paying for the services we use. I just hope that these changes will increase people's willingness to pay, then other platforms who aren't owned by the largest ad broker might have a chance.