4 ms·

OTOH, the alternative to ad-supported content is paying directly for the content you want to read, which is even worse from a privacy POV because publishers wil

OTOH, the alternative to ad-supported content is paying directly for the content you want to read, which is even worse from a privacy POV because publishers will know exactly who you are instead of only knowing which "demographic" you belong to.

dllthomas 12y ago
Unless payment goes through some kind of anonymization service.
pdkl95 12y ago
Paying directly changes the relationship significantly - a business is generally going to pay attention to their customers that produce their revenue than the "free" accounts that are the merely the product being sold to advertisers. The Onion was right[1]. In the rush to sell out their "users" to to whomever is willing to pay, a lot of people seem to have come to believe that advertising is the only way to the internet can work. The internet enabled many new ways of publishing due it removing most of the per-transaction costs. I suspect we haven't even seen most of these methods. While "Kickstarter" style funding and Wikipedia's "public television style" requests for donations, while interesting experiments, are only the first generation of what is enabled by the internet. Unfortunately, untested and unproven (by somebody else) ideas do imply some amount of risk, which scares a lot of people back into the traditional method where the advertisers get to paint over everything. edit: forgot URL [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8c_m6U1f9o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8c_m6U1f9o
wpietri 12y ago
Every neighborhood store I shop in knows who I am, and that's fine. Ditto every single online store. The problem with publishers knowing who I am is only problematic if they are also selling me out to advertisers. The easy fix for this is for them not to take advertising. Places like Consumer Reports and Cooks Illustrated do just fine that way.

4 ms·

OTOH, the alternative to ad-supported content is paying directly for the content you want to read, which is even worse from a privacy POV because publishers wil

by dserodio 12y ago

dllthomas 12y ago
Unless payment goes through some kind of anonymization service.
pdkl95 12y ago
Paying directly changes the relationship significantly - a business is generally going to pay attention to their customers that produce their revenue than the "free" accounts that are the merely the product being sold to advertisers. The Onion was right[1]. In the rush to sell out their "users" to to whomever is willing to pay, a lot of people seem to have come to believe that advertising is the only way to the internet can work. The internet enabled many new ways of publishing due it removing most of the per-transaction costs. I suspect we haven't even seen most of these methods. While "Kickstarter" style funding and Wikipedia's "public television style" requests for donations, while interesting experiments, are only the first generation of what is enabled by the internet. Unfortunately, untested and unproven (by somebody else) ideas do imply some amount of risk, which scares a lot of people back into the traditional method where the advertisers get to paint over everything. edit: forgot URL [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8c_m6U1f9o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8c_m6U1f9o
wpietri 12y ago
Every neighborhood store I shop in knows who I am, and that's fine. Ditto every single online store. The problem with publishers knowing who I am is only problematic if they are also selling me out to advertisers. The easy fix for this is for them not to take advertising. Places like Consumer Reports and Cooks Illustrated do just fine that way.