4 ms·

> You are paying for an ad-tracking free experience so you will still see non-personalised advertising. I get paying for an ad free service. (I pay for YouTube

> You are paying for an ad-tracking free experience so you will still see non-personalised advertising. I get paying for an ad free service. (I pay for YouTube Premium today.) I don't get paying and still seeing ads.

TheBozzCL 2y ago
It’s the Mr. Krabs money meme. They’ll take as much as they can get away with before people seriously push back. I mean, it’s nothing new, really - see how some paid streaming services have converted their paid, ad-free tiers to have ads, and added a more expensive tier without them again.
add-sub-mul-div 2y ago
Removal of ads has been a feature of paying for a service in some instances but not others. Why is that hard to understand?
- itishappy 2y ago
  I understand why it's offered, I don't understand why anybody would sign up for it. I feel like the segment of the population who is willing to pay for a free service in exchange for additional privacy but not willing to pay a bit more to remove ads entirely is vanishingly slim. Am I missing something?
  - add-sub-mul-div 2y ago
    There's billions of people out there, man. They're way more varied in their values and behaviors and internal logic than you could imagine. I'm much less informed today than ten years ago about what movies are coming out, what concerts will be in town, what pizza places have opened in my area, etc. But those are cool things. In becoming fully tolerant of any kind of advertising, I've denied myself some useful info. I still reflexively block all ads, but there's been consequences to that. Sometimes my interests align with an advertiser in that I do want to know what products or services are available in a given category. It doesn't mean I'm going to believe an advertiser's claims unquestioningly. I'm an adult, I know how the game works. It's easy to get into a bubble and let it make you too extremist so you start to miss the big picture.
    - itishappy 2y ago
      I see that viewpoint too, but if you see value in ads, why would you want to pay $5/mo for less relevant ones? I'm certainly in a bubble here, but I'm really struggling to imagine the combination of privacy conscious, frugal, and not-bothered-enough-to-just-install-ublock-and-ghostery as a winning combination. To put it differently, I'm confused why there's not a $10/mo ad-free tier, as that's what I'd personally prefer.
      - add-sub-mul-div 2y ago
        You could definitely be right that it's too niche of a tier to make sense. I can just see the logic (on paper) that surveillance is the worst part of advertising. I used to pay for physical newspapers and magazines that had ads in them, without complaining. It was a simpler time. But then internet content was free for so long and Google etc. abused us for so long that I can't feel good about paying for a news web site at all now. Even if it was ad free I don't trust my traffic isn't being sold in at least some obfuscated way.
        itishappy 2y ago
        > I used to pay for physical newspapers and magazines that had ads in them, without complaining. That is a point I had not considered.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

TheBozzCL 2y ago

It’s the Mr. Krabs money meme. They’ll take as much as they can get away with before people seriously push back. I mean, it’s nothing new, really - see how some paid streaming services have converted their paid, ad-free tiers to have ads, and added a more expensive tier without them again.

add-sub-mul-div 2y ago

Removal of ads has been a feature of paying for a service in some instances but not others. Why is that hard to understand?

itishappy 2y ago
I understand why it's offered, I don't understand why anybody would sign up for it. I feel like the segment of the population who is willing to pay for a free service in exchange for additional privacy but not willing to pay a bit more to remove ads entirely is vanishingly slim. Am I missing something?
- add-sub-mul-div 2y ago
  There's billions of people out there, man. They're way more varied in their values and behaviors and internal logic than you could imagine. I'm much less informed today than ten years ago about what movies are coming out, what concerts will be in town, what pizza places have opened in my area, etc. But those are cool things. In becoming fully tolerant of any kind of advertising, I've denied myself some useful info. I still reflexively block all ads, but there's been consequences to that. Sometimes my interests align with an advertiser in that I do want to know what products or services are available in a given category. It doesn't mean I'm going to believe an advertiser's claims unquestioningly. I'm an adult, I know how the game works. It's easy to get into a bubble and let it make you too extremist so you start to miss the big picture.
  - itishappy 2y ago
    I see that viewpoint too, but if you see value in ads, why would you want to pay $5/mo for less relevant ones? I'm certainly in a bubble here, but I'm really struggling to imagine the combination of privacy conscious, frugal, and not-bothered-enough-to-just-install-ublock-and-ghostery as a winning combination. To put it differently, I'm confused why there's not a $10/mo ad-free tier, as that's what I'd personally prefer.
    - add-sub-mul-div 2y ago
      You could definitely be right that it's too niche of a tier to make sense. I can just see the logic (on paper) that surveillance is the worst part of advertising. I used to pay for physical newspapers and magazines that had ads in them, without complaining. It was a simpler time. But then internet content was free for so long and Google etc. abused us for so long that I can't feel good about paying for a news web site at all now. Even if it was ad free I don't trust my traffic isn't being sold in at least some obfuscated way.
      - itishappy 2y ago
        > I used to pay for physical newspapers and magazines that had ads in them, without complaining. That is a point I had not considered.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]