4 ms·

> I think we can all agree, none of us want it to be like this. Some people must want this, how else could it end up this way?

ghaff 2y ago
Basically all the people that have the revealed preference that they’ll however grudgingly pay with their attention than tossing down cash for most content.
- Eddy_Viscosity2 2y ago
  These people do exist, but there's also the strong friction against filling out all your personal information (including credit card info) into every or entertainment site you thought interesting and then agree to some term with auto-renewal, etc. etc. Like maybe it just had the one good article/video/recipe or whatever. This is really an unworkable solution. For a pay-per-use internet sites to work, the payment has to be cheap, easy, trustworthy, and fast. This does not yet exist.
  - ghaff 2y ago
    Micropayments have been tried through third party networks but they’ve never worked. Mental transaction costs is one explanation. People want “free” is probably the other.
    - ndriscoll 2y ago
      Saying "people want free" strikes me as a warped view of the dynamic. It always seems presumptuous to me to think that people would be willing to pay to read what you have to say (or watch your video, etc.) merely because you said it. Most authors online aren't Socrates. Ads on the web are mostly on sites centered around idle distractions/entertainment. People pay exactly what that sort of "content" is worth: nothing.
    - Eddy_Viscosity2 2y ago
      > Micropayments have been tried through third party networks but they’ve never worked. Never worked? Or weren't good enough (fast, trustworthy, easy, cheap) for the purpose? I don't think its an easy problem to solve.
amelius 2y ago
Even if only 1% of people want this it can still be a shitty situation.
PaulRobinson 2y ago
People who want it to be like this are those who make money from it being like this. It's the same for every other unliked aspect of life. Poverty, war, famine - they all exist because that condition makes some other group of people richer than they otherwise would be. I am aware some parts of the World consider this observation to be a statement of socialist or communist support. It isn't meant to be. Advertising is no different. There's a lot of money in the adtech business, and it drives and is driven by a large consumer economy. Most of the people working in it hate being advertised to (being "victims"), but are happy to make money from it (being "perpetrators"). Most of us don't get to make money from advertising, so are more likely to see it for the problems it imposes on us. Morally there are huge differences, but logically you can see parallels in other disliked industries: arms dealing, modern slavery, enterprise IT sales...
- Eddy_Viscosity2 2y ago
  So this is a big problem then. Potentially insurmountable. There are in fact people then that want a privacy-invading ad-soaked shit internet and profit wildly from it. These people have outsized power and every incremental win leads to more power that results in more wins in a positive feedback loop. How can this be stopped?
  - account42 2y ago
    > How can this be stopped? https://www.theparisreview.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/576cb32f05aae_louisette.jpg https://www.theparisreview.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2018/... Power comes from the people and can be taken away by the people. Modern surveillance and control technology will make this harder but ultimately the possibility revolution is always there.
- robertlagrant 2y ago
  > People who want it to be like this are those who make money from it being like this. There's no reason why this is true. Advertising means you look at stuff in exchange for a service you don't pay for, and removes friction in visiting sites. Lots of people want that. How many would choose a world where you pay for every website you look at, other than payments processors charging transaction fees? > Poverty, war, famine - they all exist because that condition makes some other group of people richer than they otherwise would be. Capitalism is the thing that's lifted more and more of the world out of poverty, so I don't see this being the case. People got wealthy by making and selling stuff other people need and want. That's fine. The key to lifting people out of poverty instead of starving millions of people to death in the name of equality is: inequality isn't important; the base level of poverty being raised is.

ghaff 2y ago

Basically all the people that have the revealed preference that they’ll however grudgingly pay with their attention than tossing down cash for most content.

Eddy_Viscosity2 2y ago
These people do exist, but there's also the strong friction against filling out all your personal information (including credit card info) into every or entertainment site you thought interesting and then agree to some term with auto-renewal, etc. etc. Like maybe it just had the one good article/video/recipe or whatever. This is really an unworkable solution. For a pay-per-use internet sites to work, the payment has to be cheap, easy, trustworthy, and fast. This does not yet exist.
- ghaff 2y ago
  Micropayments have been tried through third party networks but they’ve never worked. Mental transaction costs is one explanation. People want “free” is probably the other.
  - ndriscoll 2y ago
    Saying "people want free" strikes me as a warped view of the dynamic. It always seems presumptuous to me to think that people would be willing to pay to read what you have to say (or watch your video, etc.) merely because you said it. Most authors online aren't Socrates. Ads on the web are mostly on sites centered around idle distractions/entertainment. People pay exactly what that sort of "content" is worth: nothing.
  - Eddy_Viscosity2 2y ago
    > Micropayments have been tried through third party networks but they’ve never worked. Never worked? Or weren't good enough (fast, trustworthy, easy, cheap) for the purpose? I don't think its an easy problem to solve.

amelius 2y ago

Even if only 1% of people want this it can still be a shitty situation.

PaulRobinson 2y ago

People who want it to be like this are those who make money from it being like this. It's the same for every other unliked aspect of life. Poverty, war, famine - they all exist because that condition makes some other group of people richer than they otherwise would be. I am aware some parts of the World consider this observation to be a statement of socialist or communist support. It isn't meant to be. Advertising is no different. There's a lot of money in the adtech business, and it drives and is driven by a large consumer economy. Most of the people working in it hate being advertised to (being "victims"), but are happy to make money from it (being "perpetrators"). Most of us don't get to make money from advertising, so are more likely to see it for the problems it imposes on us. Morally there are huge differences, but logically you can see parallels in other disliked industries: arms dealing, modern slavery, enterprise IT sales...

Eddy_Viscosity2 2y ago
So this is a big problem then. Potentially insurmountable. There are in fact people then that want a privacy-invading ad-soaked shit internet and profit wildly from it. These people have outsized power and every incremental win leads to more power that results in more wins in a positive feedback loop. How can this be stopped?
- account42 2y ago
  > How can this be stopped? https://www.theparisreview.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/576cb32f05aae_louisette.jpg https://www.theparisreview.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2018/... Power comes from the people and can be taken away by the people. Modern surveillance and control technology will make this harder but ultimately the possibility revolution is always there.
robertlagrant 2y ago
> People who want it to be like this are those who make money from it being like this. There's no reason why this is true. Advertising means you look at stuff in exchange for a service you don't pay for, and removes friction in visiting sites. Lots of people want that. How many would choose a world where you pay for every website you look at, other than payments processors charging transaction fees? > Poverty, war, famine - they all exist because that condition makes some other group of people richer than they otherwise would be. Capitalism is the thing that's lifted more and more of the world out of poverty, so I don't see this being the case. People got wealthy by making and selling stuff other people need and want. That's fine. The key to lifting people out of poverty instead of starving millions of people to death in the name of equality is: inequality isn't important; the base level of poverty being raised is.