3 ms·

> It sounds like this person is part of a tech bubble, and can't see the forest for the trees. I think the original article is correct, but not for the reasons

> It sounds like this person is part of a tech bubble, and can't see the forest for the trees. I think the original article is correct, but not for the reasons they think. You are quite correct that the average folk doesn't give a damn about the tech bubble peculiarities and absolutely don't care about trading their piracy ("like I have anything to hide lol" is quite an oft sentiment I heard). I agree with you there. But... the average folk don't have infinite patience, or money for that matter. They don't know tech, sure, but at the same time they are getting sick of being milked for subscriptions for literally anything and everything -- all the video streaming services, ChatGPT, cable still exists, internet at home, mobile internet... delivery services for gods' sakes!!! They want you to pay a subscription and the first 10 deliveries for the month are free. There are other examples, many of them. You don't have to be a tech guru to at point exclaim "I am sick of all that streaming crap. They think they can get away with everything! I'll pirate movies! You know any good sites?" -- and I have in fact witnessed non-tech-savvy people exclaiming exactly that. Of course all of that is very different compared to an actual useful AI -- if we ever get that. I am quite sure that people would gladly shell out for that. But the general point still stands; the current desperate spasms of the internet darling companies -- that FINALLY realized they have to start monetizing or investor money will dry out -- will end only with their deaths (or at least severe restructurings). Again, people don't want to be milked for every little thing. You don't have to have an university degree for that.

imiric 2y ago
I partly agree, but if people don't want to be milked for everything, what makes you think that they would be willing to pay for things they get for "free" today (e.g. paying for search or social media, as the article is implying)? My point is that most people are perfectly happy with giving up their privacy in exchange for getting a service without paying. If we want more people to use privacy-focused alternatives, we first need to educate them about the implications of what they're giving up, and even then I suspect that most people would be fine with the transaction. For example, Netflix's ad-supported tier has been very successful[1]. If anything, services are moving from a subscription-based model to an ad-supported one, because it's both more lucrative and people prefer the experience to paying for a subscription. So I wouldn't be surprised if all subscription services also adopt this same model. If nothing else offering it as an option for people who don't want to "be milked" financially, but are fine with being milked for their data and attention. Even more egregious are cases where you both pay for a subscription, but also get served ads, of which we've seen many examples. [1]: https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/netflix-ad-supported-tier-40-million-monthly-users-rcna152463 https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/netflix-ad-su...
- pdimitar 2y ago
  > what makes you think that they would be willing to pay for things they get for "free" today (e.g. paying for search or social media, as the article is implying)? Nothing. I don't claim that at all. Make web search paid and it immediately becomes "a weirdness only obsessed techies pay for" which is another thing I heard from non-tech people when I explained Kagi to them. > My point is that most people are perfectly happy with giving up their privacy in exchange for getting a service without paying. And I agree. They don't care. > If we want more people to use privacy-focused alternatives, we first need to educate them about the implications of what they're giving up, and even then I suspect that most people would be fine with the transaction. Forget about it. Educating the wider public never works unless it's something that is hitting them right where it hurts, today. Otherwise they will never pay attention. Not to mention that if we arrive at a "Minority Report" world -- where your retina is constantly scanned and you will receive personalized video + audio ads in real time as you pass by buildings -- many people will welcome it, as you yourself alluded to. People like you and me who want to opt out are not welcome in that system. The way I see it, we are already living in cyberpunk... without all the cool body modification and implants that are prevalent in this form of art. Only the ultra-corporatism is here. > For example, Netflix's ad-supported tier has been very successful This is a general critique on humanity IMO. A lot of people are content sitting lazily on the couch and checking their phone and snacking on chips while ads are running. One could easily argue they are fully within their rights to have these preferences -- job is hard, marriage is not perfect, colleague is giving them hard time, or kids are in a difficult stage etc. --- My broader point was that the very myopic corporate squeezing of consumers will spell their death for the very simple reason that the normal consumer doesn't have an infinite wallet and at one point people sit down and start re-prioritizing expenses (f.ex. I am sure both you and me know people who dialed back their video streaming budget because these services have been getting more and more insolent with time -- increasing prices, playing ads even when you pay etc.) -- meaning that the ideal imagined reality of the corpo executives where they can do whatever shenanigans will make their shareholders less miserable, simply does not exist. Or in even shorter terms: corpos can increase prices and add hidden fees, but inflation and increased annoyance by all their practices puts a hard ceiling on the regular consumer's expenditures. This is IMO the natural way out of the current (and very weird) economical situation with the electronic / internet services we see around the world.

imiric 2y ago

I partly agree, but if people don't want to be milked for everything, what makes you think that they would be willing to pay for things they get for "free" today (e.g. paying for search or social media, as the article is implying)? My point is that most people are perfectly happy with giving up their privacy in exchange for getting a service without paying. If we want more people to use privacy-focused alternatives, we first need to educate them about the implications of what they're giving up, and even then I suspect that most people would be fine with the transaction. For example, Netflix's ad-supported tier has been very successful[1]. If anything, services are moving from a subscription-based model to an ad-supported one, because it's both more lucrative and people prefer the experience to paying for a subscription. So I wouldn't be surprised if all subscription services also adopt this same model. If nothing else offering it as an option for people who don't want to "be milked" financially, but are fine with being milked for their data and attention. Even more egregious are cases where you both pay for a subscription, but also get served ads, of which we've seen many examples. [1]: https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/netflix-ad-supported-tier-40-million-monthly-users-rcna152463 https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/netflix-ad-su...

pdimitar 2y ago
> what makes you think that they would be willing to pay for things they get for "free" today (e.g. paying for search or social media, as the article is implying)? Nothing. I don't claim that at all. Make web search paid and it immediately becomes "a weirdness only obsessed techies pay for" which is another thing I heard from non-tech people when I explained Kagi to them. > My point is that most people are perfectly happy with giving up their privacy in exchange for getting a service without paying. And I agree. They don't care. > If we want more people to use privacy-focused alternatives, we first need to educate them about the implications of what they're giving up, and even then I suspect that most people would be fine with the transaction. Forget about it. Educating the wider public never works unless it's something that is hitting them right where it hurts, today. Otherwise they will never pay attention. Not to mention that if we arrive at a "Minority Report" world -- where your retina is constantly scanned and you will receive personalized video + audio ads in real time as you pass by buildings -- many people will welcome it, as you yourself alluded to. People like you and me who want to opt out are not welcome in that system. The way I see it, we are already living in cyberpunk... without all the cool body modification and implants that are prevalent in this form of art. Only the ultra-corporatism is here. > For example, Netflix's ad-supported tier has been very successful This is a general critique on humanity IMO. A lot of people are content sitting lazily on the couch and checking their phone and snacking on chips while ads are running. One could easily argue they are fully within their rights to have these preferences -- job is hard, marriage is not perfect, colleague is giving them hard time, or kids are in a difficult stage etc. --- My broader point was that the very myopic corporate squeezing of consumers will spell their death for the very simple reason that the normal consumer doesn't have an infinite wallet and at one point people sit down and start re-prioritizing expenses (f.ex. I am sure both you and me know people who dialed back their video streaming budget because these services have been getting more and more insolent with time -- increasing prices, playing ads even when you pay etc.) -- meaning that the ideal imagined reality of the corpo executives where they can do whatever shenanigans will make their shareholders less miserable, simply does not exist. Or in even shorter terms: corpos can increase prices and add hidden fees, but inflation and increased annoyance by all their practices puts a hard ceiling on the regular consumer's expenditures. This is IMO the natural way out of the current (and very weird) economical situation with the electronic / internet services we see around the world.