6 ms·

> But when it comes time to pay for content, those people rarely are willing to pony up. You can see this happening with journalism, music, apps, etc. I think

> But when it comes time to pay for content, those people rarely are willing to pony up. You can see this happening with journalism, music, apps, etc. I think this sentiment is wrong. Personally, I pay for content and services that I find value adding (Kagi, Fastmail, etc.) That said: I am never going to pay for YouTube. The issue is that the entire platform and all of its content is catered to ad-revenue. I could be convinced to pay for a video service like YouTube where everything into its core and legacy has been based around user payments. Likewise I am never going to pay for news services that has adjusted their entire offering and content towards ad-revenue. But until I discover such a platform I am going to keep on my ad-blocker.

hedora 3y ago
I actually don't mind ads. They're fine. The classified section of newspapers used to fund journalism in the US. Someone's got to pay Clark Kent, after all. What I do mind is algorithmic targeting. On the ad serving front, it funds an entire industry that does nothing but violate people's basic human right to privacy. On the personalized recommendation front, it provides a strong incentive for publishers to produce click-bait. There's one commercially viable corner of the internet that hasn't been ruined by this: Podcasts. Spotify is trying to ruin that too. Screw them. Also, if you're looking for a decent music service, consider something privacy preserving like Apple Music, or (better) something that uses metadata-based targeting, like Tidal. I find most of my music by following hyperlinks in album / band reviews that were written by actual humans. There's a button for that in Tidal. I've heard Amazon Music has such a button as well. I've also found listening to high-quality (local) radio stations with good DJ's is a goldmine, as are music podcasts. I've also found that non-tailored recommendations (people who like album X like album Y, grouping of opening acts with bands, and, when done right, old-fashioned display ads) also provide a decent signal, since they're typically curated or use the things I just mentioned as signal (instead of using your cookware preferences, or sexual orientation, or whatever). In addition to being the ethical alternative, it turns out that having bands and critics list things that influenced an album or were influenced by an album is a much better way to explore the space of modern music than via payola with a dollop of high-dimensional clustering. So, in addition to the ad blocker, I'm not paying for anything that tries to spoon-feed me payola or clickbait.
chefandy 3y ago
> Personally, I pay for content and services that I find value adding While it would be a convenient reality, the people on HN are not even close to representative of the general population, and you can't generalize their tendencies. How many Kagi and Fastmail users are there compared to Google and Microsoft? Look at Google Play reviews for apps that front paid services: even for astonishingly cheap ones, a considerable percentage essentially say "not free: uninstalled! Those conniving bastards!" And if you're willing to pay for services instead of using ad-supported platforms, you must pay all of your music and other content, then? You don't even have to stomach the DRM from Apple Music, Amazon, e-reader platforms, et al with music shops, book stores, movie theaters, Bandcamp, Patreon, Substack -- there are so many services through which you can exercise your principles and pay for content directly. It's pretty common for the tech crowd to wag their finger at people who feel entitled to free commercial software and services (e.g. Kagi, Fastmail,) yet do the same exact thing with arts and entertainment. Getting access to content on ad-supported services isn't your right. There are alternatives. I'm not saying you must uninstall your ad blocker-- there are many unavoidable and essential things-- e.g., things for work-- that contain ads even when they really shouldn't. But you can't just assume that since you pay for some stuff, then everybody else is paying for some stuff, and since the distributors are real jerks, you have ethical carte blanche to take people's work without any payment. Creators don't have a choice to use these systems because people won't pay (directly) for things.
- madsbuch 3y ago
  I am quite sure I do not have the ethical card in any of these discussions. I also pay way less than the combined sum of the value I receive from the internet. But there is a marketplace. And the content of YouTube is not worth the price of YouTubes premium offerings because they embed ads. Ie. I pay to remove YouTube's ads, but not video sponsorships. That would be like paying for Kagi and still only be presented SEO-optimized worthless content – I pay for Kagi because I feel like they can filter away that content much better than Google. I am saying that a product you pay for is not the same as an ad-supported product. It is not just about stripping the product of ads after the user has paid. So everybody not willing to pay for a Gmail offering without ads, I completely understand them.
Reubend 3y ago
> Personally, I pay for content and services that I find value adding... That said: I am never going to pay for YouTube... I am going to keep on my ad-blocker. So let me get this straight: you proudly claim that you pay for services which provide you value. But you don't think its hypocritical that you use YouTube with an ad-blocker and avoid paying for the subscription? If you keep going back and using it, then it IS providing you with value. You might argue that the value is very small, but it's also not a big inconvenience to watch a few ads. You're still consuming content without contributing anything back.

hedora 3y ago

I actually don't mind ads. They're fine. The classified section of newspapers used to fund journalism in the US. Someone's got to pay Clark Kent, after all. What I do mind is algorithmic targeting. On the ad serving front, it funds an entire industry that does nothing but violate people's basic human right to privacy. On the personalized recommendation front, it provides a strong incentive for publishers to produce click-bait. There's one commercially viable corner of the internet that hasn't been ruined by this: Podcasts. Spotify is trying to ruin that too. Screw them. Also, if you're looking for a decent music service, consider something privacy preserving like Apple Music, or (better) something that uses metadata-based targeting, like Tidal. I find most of my music by following hyperlinks in album / band reviews that were written by actual humans. There's a button for that in Tidal. I've heard Amazon Music has such a button as well. I've also found listening to high-quality (local) radio stations with good DJ's is a goldmine, as are music podcasts. I've also found that non-tailored recommendations (people who like album X like album Y, grouping of opening acts with bands, and, when done right, old-fashioned display ads) also provide a decent signal, since they're typically curated or use the things I just mentioned as signal (instead of using your cookware preferences, or sexual orientation, or whatever). In addition to being the ethical alternative, it turns out that having bands and critics list things that influenced an album or were influenced by an album is a much better way to explore the space of modern music than via payola with a dollop of high-dimensional clustering. So, in addition to the ad blocker, I'm not paying for anything that tries to spoon-feed me payola or clickbait.

chefandy 3y ago

> Personally, I pay for content and services that I find value adding While it would be a convenient reality, the people on HN are not even close to representative of the general population, and you can't generalize their tendencies. How many Kagi and Fastmail users are there compared to Google and Microsoft? Look at Google Play reviews for apps that front paid services: even for astonishingly cheap ones, a considerable percentage essentially say "not free: uninstalled! Those conniving bastards!" And if you're willing to pay for services instead of using ad-supported platforms, you must pay all of your music and other content, then? You don't even have to stomach the DRM from Apple Music, Amazon, e-reader platforms, et al with music shops, book stores, movie theaters, Bandcamp, Patreon, Substack -- there are so many services through which you can exercise your principles and pay for content directly. It's pretty common for the tech crowd to wag their finger at people who feel entitled to free commercial software and services (e.g. Kagi, Fastmail,) yet do the same exact thing with arts and entertainment. Getting access to content on ad-supported services isn't your right. There are alternatives. I'm not saying you must uninstall your ad blocker-- there are many unavoidable and essential things-- e.g., things for work-- that contain ads even when they really shouldn't. But you can't just assume that since you pay for some stuff, then everybody else is paying for some stuff, and since the distributors are real jerks, you have ethical carte blanche to take people's work without any payment. Creators don't have a choice to use these systems because people won't pay (directly) for things.

madsbuch 3y ago
I am quite sure I do not have the ethical card in any of these discussions. I also pay way less than the combined sum of the value I receive from the internet. But there is a marketplace. And the content of YouTube is not worth the price of YouTubes premium offerings because they embed ads. Ie. I pay to remove YouTube's ads, but not video sponsorships. That would be like paying for Kagi and still only be presented SEO-optimized worthless content – I pay for Kagi because I feel like they can filter away that content much better than Google. I am saying that a product you pay for is not the same as an ad-supported product. It is not just about stripping the product of ads after the user has paid. So everybody not willing to pay for a Gmail offering without ads, I completely understand them.

Reubend 3y ago

> Personally, I pay for content and services that I find value adding... That said: I am never going to pay for YouTube... I am going to keep on my ad-blocker. So let me get this straight: you proudly claim that you pay for services which provide you value. But you don't think its hypocritical that you use YouTube with an ad-blocker and avoid paying for the subscription? If you keep going back and using it, then it IS providing you with value. You might argue that the value is very small, but it's also not a big inconvenience to watch a few ads. You're still consuming content without contributing anything back.