6 ms·

Most of the arguments made are not about "advertising" per se, but the methods that SOME forms of advertising take and other methods (data mining, phishing, sca

Most of the arguments made are not about "advertising" per se, but the methods that SOME forms of advertising take and other methods (data mining, phishing, scams) that are either not advertising or are things that are already regulated/illegal but which enforcement actions against are low/non-existent. In the book "Fire in the Valley" about the development and early days of the internet there is a great deal of discussion and prescient predictions about where all of this would go - but the business models of walled gardens and pay walls never generated the revenue that charging for clicks did. Honestly it's hard to see how we get to this level of speed and content online without it having been funded by advertising.

canadaduane 2y ago
How do we know if "this level of speed and content online" is net good?
- ahoka 2y ago
  We know that most of the content is crap.
  - edanm 2y ago
    Most of everything is crap. Most books are crap. Most science is crap.
- EncomLab 2y ago
  This really depends on the content you are seeking and consuming as the user. I am constantly pulling data sheets, reading papers, researching reference designs, interacting on official (and unofficial) product forums, and countless other information queries which at the start of my career were largely conducted at either company or university libraries, in person meetings, or attending conferences. That may sound great but trust me it's far better to sit at home and have the entire product specifications from a manufacturer than ordering a physical copy or spending half the day calling around to see if someone else has one available. If all you are consuming is FB, IG, X, and Reddit - I mean that's like going to a candy store and complaining there is no broccoli.
  - DrScientist 2y ago
    So most content you consume isn't funded by advertising. So I'm confused as to why you think advertising has driven the development of the internet[1]. Take for example investments in bandwidth - that's largely to meet the needs of TV/video and later gaming [2] - both with direct revenue streams independent of advertising ( and any advertising revenue they traditionally got has been eroded, not enhanced by the internet ). The other major sites where things like Amazon or existing media outlets. Note I don't include youtube in the above - as the most popular content is in effect stolen ( music, old TV shows etc ), and then resold with ads. [1] Internet companies yes, the internet less so. [2] When BBC iplayer went live in the UK ( ~2007 ) ISPs complained that it was taking up to a third of their entire bandwidth and they wanted the BBC to fund their capacity expansion. The BBC said, nope - it's you that made you bandwidth availability promises to your customers.
    - EncomLab 2y ago
      "So most content you consume isn't funded by advertising." You are conflating the content and the delivery method. It's like saying "most of the stuff you buy can be delivered by a bicycle, so interstate highways are not important.
      - DrScientist 2y ago
        And who pays for the highway? The people paying their ISP bills - who did so because they wanted to watch the BBC/ Netflix etc , or shop at Amazon, read a newspaper online, bank online or play online games, or work from home - or the content you consume - all of which doesn't require advertising. Sure Youtube and tik-tok consume huge bandwidth - but I'd argue if that was the only thing available on the internet then people wouldn't be paying their ISP bills. The internet was growing massively before Google worked out how to make serious money with online ads.
barrkel 2y ago
The underlying point is game theoretical: ads are driven to these methods because within their niches, they're zero sum games (and negative sum for society at large due to externalities). > Honestly it's hard to see how we get to this level of speed and content online without it having been funded by advertising. I don't understand what this means. Most content online that isn't user generated (forums, blogs, wikipedia, YT, short form video etc) is junk. Most of it is made for free. The distribution has costs - but it's extremely unclear the costs couldn't be solved in different ways. Serving text is ultra cheap. Torrents distribute way more video than industry is happy with. We didn't need to take this path.
- EncomLab 2y ago
  All of that "free" and "cheap" stuff has not always been free or cheap - even a decade ago. In the mid-late 90's when these decisions were being made even hosting a minimal site was incredibly expensive and largely the realm of universities and big business.
pavel_lishin 2y ago
No True Adsman would do this form of advertising!
JohnFen 2y ago
> Honestly it's hard to see how we get to this level of speed and content online without it having been funded by advertising. Maybe, maybe not. But that juice has absolutely not been worth the squeeze.
oska 2y ago
> Honestly it's hard to see how we get to this level of speed and content online without it having been funded by advertising. If we had gone (or stayed) peer to peer we could have done it, rather than going the expensive client server model. Server farms require funding; peer to peer doesn't.

canadaduane 2y ago

How do we know if "this level of speed and content online" is net good?

ahoka 2y ago
We know that most of the content is crap.
- edanm 2y ago
  Most of everything is crap. Most books are crap. Most science is crap.
EncomLab 2y ago
This really depends on the content you are seeking and consuming as the user. I am constantly pulling data sheets, reading papers, researching reference designs, interacting on official (and unofficial) product forums, and countless other information queries which at the start of my career were largely conducted at either company or university libraries, in person meetings, or attending conferences. That may sound great but trust me it's far better to sit at home and have the entire product specifications from a manufacturer than ordering a physical copy or spending half the day calling around to see if someone else has one available. If all you are consuming is FB, IG, X, and Reddit - I mean that's like going to a candy store and complaining there is no broccoli.
- DrScientist 2y ago
  So most content you consume isn't funded by advertising. So I'm confused as to why you think advertising has driven the development of the internet[1]. Take for example investments in bandwidth - that's largely to meet the needs of TV/video and later gaming [2] - both with direct revenue streams independent of advertising ( and any advertising revenue they traditionally got has been eroded, not enhanced by the internet ). The other major sites where things like Amazon or existing media outlets. Note I don't include youtube in the above - as the most popular content is in effect stolen ( music, old TV shows etc ), and then resold with ads. [1] Internet companies yes, the internet less so. [2] When BBC iplayer went live in the UK ( ~2007 ) ISPs complained that it was taking up to a third of their entire bandwidth and they wanted the BBC to fund their capacity expansion. The BBC said, nope - it's you that made you bandwidth availability promises to your customers.
  - EncomLab 2y ago
    "So most content you consume isn't funded by advertising." You are conflating the content and the delivery method. It's like saying "most of the stuff you buy can be delivered by a bicycle, so interstate highways are not important.
    - DrScientist 2y ago
      And who pays for the highway? The people paying their ISP bills - who did so because they wanted to watch the BBC/ Netflix etc , or shop at Amazon, read a newspaper online, bank online or play online games, or work from home - or the content you consume - all of which doesn't require advertising. Sure Youtube and tik-tok consume huge bandwidth - but I'd argue if that was the only thing available on the internet then people wouldn't be paying their ISP bills. The internet was growing massively before Google worked out how to make serious money with online ads.

barrkel 2y ago

The underlying point is game theoretical: ads are driven to these methods because within their niches, they're zero sum games (and negative sum for society at large due to externalities). > Honestly it's hard to see how we get to this level of speed and content online without it having been funded by advertising. I don't understand what this means. Most content online that isn't user generated (forums, blogs, wikipedia, YT, short form video etc) is junk. Most of it is made for free. The distribution has costs - but it's extremely unclear the costs couldn't be solved in different ways. Serving text is ultra cheap. Torrents distribute way more video than industry is happy with. We didn't need to take this path.

EncomLab 2y ago
All of that "free" and "cheap" stuff has not always been free or cheap - even a decade ago. In the mid-late 90's when these decisions were being made even hosting a minimal site was incredibly expensive and largely the realm of universities and big business.

pavel_lishin 2y ago

No True Adsman would do this form of advertising!

JohnFen 2y ago

> Honestly it's hard to see how we get to this level of speed and content online without it having been funded by advertising. Maybe, maybe not. But that juice has absolutely not been worth the squeeze.

oska 2y ago

> Honestly it's hard to see how we get to this level of speed and content online without it having been funded by advertising. If we had gone (or stayed) peer to peer we could have done it, rather than going the expensive client server model. Server farms require funding; peer to peer doesn't.