3 ms·

> Ads are not the problem. I'll quote you "this is a bad take". What's bad is asking me to pay money and then serving me premium ads because you now know i'm s

> Ads are not the problem. I'll quote you "this is a bad take". What's bad is asking me to pay money and then serving me premium ads because you now know i'm someone with disposable income and i'm willing to give it to a premium publication. > Ads are a good way to make revenue when it is done right. In an ideal world, yes. That ideal world is long gone.

unsungNovelty 2y ago
> I'll quote you "this is a bad take". What's bad is asking me to pay money and then serving me premium ads because you now know i'm someone with disposable income and i'm willing to give it to a premium publication. > What's bad is asking me to pay money and then serving me premium ads because you now know i'm someone with disposable income and i'm willing to give it to a premium publication. OK. Let's first examine 2 complaints about ads: 1. Ads are an annoyance. 2. Ads with surveillance and data economy are bad. If your problem is the first one, I don't have anything else to say than the fact that Ads are not going anywhere. My arguments are all against and about the 2nd point. I think ads are a good way to make revenue. And it should NOT be done with data surveillance but with curated and useful ads. Exactly. Do you think the problem is ads here? And you still haven't answered to my POV. How is paywall stopping data surveillance? The reality is they are making you pay and serving ads. Which is the problem? How is paying solving it? > In an ideal world, yes. That ideal world is long gone. If we are to fix the problem, this is what we should do. Find THAT ideal world.
- manuelmoreale 2y ago
  > I don't have anything else to say than the fact that Ads are not going anywhere. Why? You state that as if Ads are a product of the universe we live in and we need to accept them like gravity. > And it should NOT be done with data surveillance but with curated and useful ads. Agree in principle. The problem is that you don't even need to do data surveilance in this case. I pay money to the verge. You can infer I have a) disposable income and 2) interest in tech With those two alone you can start showing me ads. You don't even need to profile me. And that's wrong in my book. > Do you think the problem is ads here? And you still haven't answered to my POV. How is paywall stopping data surveillance? The reality is they are making you pay and serving ads. Which is the problem? How is paying solving it? The problem is the ambiguity. The old mantra says "If you're not paying for the product then i'm the product" Well i'm paying. The transaction should be clear. I give you money, you give me content. But instead that's not what you get. Because you still get profiled, you're still served ads, and sure, BETTER, ads. That's my problem.
  - unsungNovelty 2y ago
    > Why? You state that as if Ads are a product of the universe we live in and we need to accept them like gravity. Am being realistic. The enshittification of tech companies is not to be blamed on ads. Ads have been around way way before, internet, tv or even news papers. > Agree in principle. The problem is that you don't even need to do data surveilance in this case. I agree with you here as well. Remove data surveillance and behavioural ads and you get contextual / static ads. That is better for users, advertisers. Ads zero is not the solution is all am saying. The disagreement I have with this is that the other way (your way) doesn't work as well. They still track data, make you pay and it is only accessible to people with disposable income. > The problem is the ambiguity. The old mantra says "If you're not paying for the product then i'm the product" No. Data surveillance has nothing do with ads. DuckduckGo is a good examplle of it. It doesn't have to be like that. > Well i'm paying. The transaction should be clear. I give you money, you give me content. But instead that's not what you get. Because you still get profiled, you're still served ads, and sure, BETTER, ads. That's my problem. This is a very entitled view. Not all of them has the disposable income. Moreover, How many are you going to subscribe? But also, it doesn't fly with news sites. Subscription works for software etc. Anything that needs to be accessible for the broader audiences (like journalism), it fails. This is where ads come in. Moreover, my problem with the whole statement is that ads were done in a right away in the past. We know how to do that. While it hasn't panned out very well when it comes to subscriptions for news sites etc. It is making it more difficult for journalists and others to survive with subscription. There is a reason why newspapers had ads even after you pay for subscription. Especially for news sites like services. The problem with internet ads is that we just don't want to directly deal with advertisers. We rather make an api call and let google do the rest. AND they do surveillance. Thats on us. Not on ads.

unsungNovelty 2y ago

> I'll quote you "this is a bad take". What's bad is asking me to pay money and then serving me premium ads because you now know i'm someone with disposable income and i'm willing to give it to a premium publication. > What's bad is asking me to pay money and then serving me premium ads because you now know i'm someone with disposable income and i'm willing to give it to a premium publication. OK. Let's first examine 2 complaints about ads: 1. Ads are an annoyance. 2. Ads with surveillance and data economy are bad. If your problem is the first one, I don't have anything else to say than the fact that Ads are not going anywhere. My arguments are all against and about the 2nd point. I think ads are a good way to make revenue. And it should NOT be done with data surveillance but with curated and useful ads. Exactly. Do you think the problem is ads here? And you still haven't answered to my POV. How is paywall stopping data surveillance? The reality is they are making you pay and serving ads. Which is the problem? How is paying solving it? > In an ideal world, yes. That ideal world is long gone. If we are to fix the problem, this is what we should do. Find THAT ideal world.

manuelmoreale 2y ago
> I don't have anything else to say than the fact that Ads are not going anywhere. Why? You state that as if Ads are a product of the universe we live in and we need to accept them like gravity. > And it should NOT be done with data surveillance but with curated and useful ads. Agree in principle. The problem is that you don't even need to do data surveilance in this case. I pay money to the verge. You can infer I have a) disposable income and 2) interest in tech With those two alone you can start showing me ads. You don't even need to profile me. And that's wrong in my book. > Do you think the problem is ads here? And you still haven't answered to my POV. How is paywall stopping data surveillance? The reality is they are making you pay and serving ads. Which is the problem? How is paying solving it? The problem is the ambiguity. The old mantra says "If you're not paying for the product then i'm the product" Well i'm paying. The transaction should be clear. I give you money, you give me content. But instead that's not what you get. Because you still get profiled, you're still served ads, and sure, BETTER, ads. That's my problem.
- unsungNovelty 2y ago
  > Why? You state that as if Ads are a product of the universe we live in and we need to accept them like gravity. Am being realistic. The enshittification of tech companies is not to be blamed on ads. Ads have been around way way before, internet, tv or even news papers. > Agree in principle. The problem is that you don't even need to do data surveilance in this case. I agree with you here as well. Remove data surveillance and behavioural ads and you get contextual / static ads. That is better for users, advertisers. Ads zero is not the solution is all am saying. The disagreement I have with this is that the other way (your way) doesn't work as well. They still track data, make you pay and it is only accessible to people with disposable income. > The problem is the ambiguity. The old mantra says "If you're not paying for the product then i'm the product" No. Data surveillance has nothing do with ads. DuckduckGo is a good examplle of it. It doesn't have to be like that. > Well i'm paying. The transaction should be clear. I give you money, you give me content. But instead that's not what you get. Because you still get profiled, you're still served ads, and sure, BETTER, ads. That's my problem. This is a very entitled view. Not all of them has the disposable income. Moreover, How many are you going to subscribe? But also, it doesn't fly with news sites. Subscription works for software etc. Anything that needs to be accessible for the broader audiences (like journalism), it fails. This is where ads come in. Moreover, my problem with the whole statement is that ads were done in a right away in the past. We know how to do that. While it hasn't panned out very well when it comes to subscriptions for news sites etc. It is making it more difficult for journalists and others to survive with subscription. There is a reason why newspapers had ads even after you pay for subscription. Especially for news sites like services. The problem with internet ads is that we just don't want to directly deal with advertisers. We rather make an api call and let google do the rest. AND they do surveillance. Thats on us. Not on ads.