3 ms·
I think your approach is reasonably ethical. I'm not all that concerned with ethics; rather the continued funding of the websites we like. One important element
by darkhorse222 2y ago
I think your approach is reasonably ethical. I'm not all that concerned with ethics; rather the continued funding of the websites we like. One important element of your first hypothetical is that a donation model probably won't suffice, websites will need to be able to set their price based on their costs, so it can't be evenly split between the sites you visit.
So I think the experience would be like you add $5 to your browser, then as you visit sites it asks you either to pay a one time access fee or subscribe for continued access.
But this would be the case for every site, right, because they all cost money. I wonder how many distinct websites the average user visits and if they're willing to pay that many parties that much money.
I guess my conclusion here is that bad ads should be punished by some mechanism. Unfortunately making the most targeted, helpful (and they are helpful, by the way, when done right they show you something you like) ads often incentivizes bad ad production practices like data farming and data marketplaces. I think that has to be attacked legislatively or, in your example, by direct payment.
But I think the reality of an internet gated by payments is a bigger deal than people appreciate.
(PS Not that this is usually my line of argument, but it also has the unfortunate effect of tying someone's economic status to what they can access, leading to greater isolated groups and class hierarchies in content)
- nemomarx 2y agothe problem with ads targeted to what I might like is they lead to more purchasing and spending, which is not without cost. something you won't buy without seeing an ad for it is probably an impulse purchase, and those are somewhat predatory. it seems more reasonable to me to only advertise like that when a user signals they're interested in a particular type of product, not passively all the time.
- BobaFloutist 2y agoYeah people think of advertising as a "free" way to fund things, but companies wouldn't pay the advertisers if they weren't making a profit off of it, so in theory the customers are still paying for the website, but it's only some of them paying for the vast majority that don't pay a dime, and everyone else is just getting irritated by the ads for no benefit to the website.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- DennisP 2y ago> websites will need to be able to set their price based on their costs Most businesses don't really get to do that. They set their price based on what customers are willing to pay. Then they try to keep their variable costs low enough to be profitable, and get enough sales to cover their fixed costs. > tying someone's economic status to what they can access An option there is subscriptions for those willing to pay, ads for the rest. Youtube does that, for example (and it's one of the sites I pay). I don't really want "helpful" ads. I just want to be left alone. I don't want corporations trying to manipulate me, and I don't want distractions from whatever I'm trying to read, because I'm distractible enough as it is. If I want to buy something, I can search for it, and when I do, I don't want to see it everywhere I go for the next month.