5 ms·

That's a very different Internet from the one we live on today. I don't think most people want to pay per page view even if the system were relatively cheap and

by eli 11y ago

That's a very different Internet from the one we live on today. I don't think most people want to pay per page view even if the system were relatively cheap and well implemented. I like that I can link to a page and typically trust that if the other person is on the Internet, they can view it.

sliverstorm 11y ago
Most people would not pay if the cost was fifty cents. But what if it was 0.1 cents? My desktop computer burns 0.1 cents in electricity every ten minutes.
- calgoo 11y ago
  i would still not ever visit the site, and i would do everything in my power to rip the content and distribute it freely. I keep adblock on all the time now, only adding a few exceptions which i deem worthy. My problem is that i can not stand to have so much BS ads added to the text of the page. Sometimes i even use adblock to remove part of the webpages so i only get the content, when the author has made the page to messy. However, its not that hard to make a page acceptable, just don't add 10 ad boxes around and inside you article. Also don't add ads inside the text I'm reading, that is going to get blocked in seconds. Flash and image ads (especially ones that try to imitate page functions) are atrocities that a lot of times makes me leave a page and not visit it until months later when i forget why i was not visiting it. The only ads i approve are small, text based ads that are clearly marked as such and that don't interrupt the flow of information from the page. The moment i have to halt and reason if something is and ad or not, you get automatically blacklisted, and heavily so. On my home network i redirect several abusive ad networks DNS entries to an internal server that hijacks the ads and replaces them with jolly rogers :P Its really fun to see some pages with 8 jolly rogers smiling back at you giving me a evil grin thinking of the cents the page is loosing. [Edit: fixed spelling]
  - 72deluxe 11y ago
    If you are ripping content and distributing it, aren't you engaging in copyright infringement? The argument for infringing copyright has never stood up. "Music wants to be free" etc. etc. is all a load of rubbish. "Food wants to be free" is another slogan we could all adopt but nobody would accept it because food has a cost, the same way that creating content has a cost.
nostrademons 11y ago
What if it were a flat fee? Google makes on the order of $60/user/year. I'd personally be happy to pay $5/month to Google things. Grandparent poster has me intrigued. It's common knowledge that you can't make money off consumers on the Internet, but I wonder if this is just a function of the newness of the Internet and intensity of competition when the main business models that support it were invented. I wonder, if Google were to offer a $5/month plan where they wouldn't show you any ads and didn't collect any personal data on you, how many people would take it.
- menzoic 11y ago
  You can pay Google monthly https://www.google.com/contributor/welcome/ https://www.google.com/contributor/welcome/
  - coldpie 11y ago
    Wow, that's actually really neat. Thank you for posting that.
- iSnow 11y ago
  I would even pay double this if I had the assurance Google stopped recording my every move. The stuff they make is fantastic, their services are great and I'd be happy to pay for them. But not on top of them selling my data.
  - 72deluxe 11y ago
    I would be tempted too!
  - soylentcola 11y ago
    Counterpoint(s): A lot of the stuff they make is fantastic (and works fantastically) because their analytics help determine what that website ought to display or what you probably meant by that search query. I get an email from a friend inviting me to a workshop Friday evening. When I open the invite it asks me if I am going. I click "yes" and it adds the event to my calendar. After work on Friday I use Maps to find the quickest way home through rush hour traffic. Since I have typed in my destination and run the mapping app, Google's algorithms can tell when I get home. Later in the evening, my watch buzzes and I see a notification that tells me that I'll need to leave by 7:34pm to make it to the workshop at 8:00pm in the current traffic. I swipe away the notification and get ready to leave. Once I leave, my Nest thermostat switches over to "away" mode since I don't need to run the a/c nearly as cool while I'm away. Thankfully, since it's 94 degrees today, it will use the weather info in my area as well as the indoor thermometer to calculate the most efficient time to start cooling again when I fire up Maps to head back home. This is a scenario that I run into just about every day. I may not use all of those things every single day but I do on some. Other times it's more basic (calendar reminders or HVAC auto-tweaking for energy efficiency). Either way, none of it works without analysis of the data I choose to feed it during the course of daily life. And as far as I can tell, they haven't "sold" my data to anyone. What they have done is use it to make educated guesses about where I live and what may be of interest to me. That way when they sell ad space on the Youtube videos I watch later this evening or on the sidebar of a web search, they can sell that ad space to others who will pay more in the knowledge that their ad budget will be more useful than just a guess. I certainly remember the web before this sort of thing. Ad space was worth even less than it is now since the only way to stand out was to make your banners more annoying and more abundant. It was worse than cable/tv where a quarter (or more) of every hour is filled by advertising. The advertising is almost never relevant to my interests. It's loud and stupid and on top of it, I still have to pay for cable. To complete the analogy, if Google started a cable network, they could charge $15/mo, show only 10 minutes of ads during an hour-long program, and the ads would at least be for things I would conceivably buy much of the time. There's plenty of down sides to targeted advertising but the selling of access to my eyeballs is not the same thing as selling my data. It may not seem like much but it makes all the difference to me. In one scenario I consent to one company using the info I give them to enable the services I use. In the other, I'm giving consent for a company to sell my actual info to unknown and undisclosed third parties.

by eli 11y ago

sliverstorm 11y ago

Most people would not pay if the cost was fifty cents. But what if it was 0.1 cents? My desktop computer burns 0.1 cents in electricity every ten minutes.

calgoo 11y ago
i would still not ever visit the site, and i would do everything in my power to rip the content and distribute it freely. I keep adblock on all the time now, only adding a few exceptions which i deem worthy. My problem is that i can not stand to have so much BS ads added to the text of the page. Sometimes i even use adblock to remove part of the webpages so i only get the content, when the author has made the page to messy. However, its not that hard to make a page acceptable, just don't add 10 ad boxes around and inside you article. Also don't add ads inside the text I'm reading, that is going to get blocked in seconds. Flash and image ads (especially ones that try to imitate page functions) are atrocities that a lot of times makes me leave a page and not visit it until months later when i forget why i was not visiting it. The only ads i approve are small, text based ads that are clearly marked as such and that don't interrupt the flow of information from the page. The moment i have to halt and reason if something is and ad or not, you get automatically blacklisted, and heavily so. On my home network i redirect several abusive ad networks DNS entries to an internal server that hijacks the ads and replaces them with jolly rogers :P Its really fun to see some pages with 8 jolly rogers smiling back at you giving me a evil grin thinking of the cents the page is loosing. [Edit: fixed spelling]
- 72deluxe 11y ago
  If you are ripping content and distributing it, aren't you engaging in copyright infringement? The argument for infringing copyright has never stood up. "Music wants to be free" etc. etc. is all a load of rubbish. "Food wants to be free" is another slogan we could all adopt but nobody would accept it because food has a cost, the same way that creating content has a cost.

nostrademons 11y ago

What if it were a flat fee? Google makes on the order of $60/user/year. I'd personally be happy to pay $5/month to Google things. Grandparent poster has me intrigued. It's common knowledge that you can't make money off consumers on the Internet, but I wonder if this is just a function of the newness of the Internet and intensity of competition when the main business models that support it were invented. I wonder, if Google were to offer a $5/month plan where they wouldn't show you any ads and didn't collect any personal data on you, how many people would take it.

menzoic 11y ago
You can pay Google monthly https://www.google.com/contributor/welcome/ https://www.google.com/contributor/welcome/
- coldpie 11y ago
  Wow, that's actually really neat. Thank you for posting that.
iSnow 11y ago
I would even pay double this if I had the assurance Google stopped recording my every move. The stuff they make is fantastic, their services are great and I'd be happy to pay for them. But not on top of them selling my data.
- 72deluxe 11y ago
  I would be tempted too!
- soylentcola 11y ago
  Counterpoint(s): A lot of the stuff they make is fantastic (and works fantastically) because their analytics help determine what that website ought to display or what you probably meant by that search query. I get an email from a friend inviting me to a workshop Friday evening. When I open the invite it asks me if I am going. I click "yes" and it adds the event to my calendar. After work on Friday I use Maps to find the quickest way home through rush hour traffic. Since I have typed in my destination and run the mapping app, Google's algorithms can tell when I get home. Later in the evening, my watch buzzes and I see a notification that tells me that I'll need to leave by 7:34pm to make it to the workshop at 8:00pm in the current traffic. I swipe away the notification and get ready to leave. Once I leave, my Nest thermostat switches over to "away" mode since I don't need to run the a/c nearly as cool while I'm away. Thankfully, since it's 94 degrees today, it will use the weather info in my area as well as the indoor thermometer to calculate the most efficient time to start cooling again when I fire up Maps to head back home. This is a scenario that I run into just about every day. I may not use all of those things every single day but I do on some. Other times it's more basic (calendar reminders or HVAC auto-tweaking for energy efficiency). Either way, none of it works without analysis of the data I choose to feed it during the course of daily life. And as far as I can tell, they haven't "sold" my data to anyone. What they have done is use it to make educated guesses about where I live and what may be of interest to me. That way when they sell ad space on the Youtube videos I watch later this evening or on the sidebar of a web search, they can sell that ad space to others who will pay more in the knowledge that their ad budget will be more useful than just a guess. I certainly remember the web before this sort of thing. Ad space was worth even less than it is now since the only way to stand out was to make your banners more annoying and more abundant. It was worse than cable/tv where a quarter (or more) of every hour is filled by advertising. The advertising is almost never relevant to my interests. It's loud and stupid and on top of it, I still have to pay for cable. To complete the analogy, if Google started a cable network, they could charge $15/mo, show only 10 minutes of ads during an hour-long program, and the ads would at least be for things I would conceivably buy much of the time. There's plenty of down sides to targeted advertising but the selling of access to my eyeballs is not the same thing as selling my data. It may not seem like much but it makes all the difference to me. In one scenario I consent to one company using the info I give them to enable the services I use. In the other, I'm giving consent for a company to sell my actual info to unknown and undisclosed third parties.