izzygottlieb

5 ms·

1.
by izzygottlieb 4mo ago
If a human proved attention (via comprehension check, LLM detection, feedback etc.), compared to the alternative of just paying $5-$15 on LinkedIn for just a CLICK! The choice is a no-brainer.
2.
by izzygottlieb 4mo ago
If you verify every human, to not be a bot, and to be reputable (e.g. employee at Google) vs. trusting LinkedIn to show your ads to those same people to want to target. The math is in the formers favor. Quality cannot be much more degraded
3.
by izzygottlieb 4mo ago
Hot take, if you pay platforms like LinkedIn and X for your ads, they will turn a blind eye on the $63B a year ad fraud. Because they will lose billions. If you pay the "humans" directly there's no "conflict of interest&
4.
Pay humans to engage in ads, not LinkedIn(nexertise.com)
3 points by izzygottlieb 4mo ago|8 comments
5.
by izzygottlieb 4mo ago
There is one — Nexertise
6.
by izzygottlieb 4mo ago
If we invite a "pay for human engagement" model to the market, there will be security. Companies will not have to pay for hopes anymore. They will they for what they are trying to achieve: human engagement with their product.
7.
by izzygottlieb 4mo ago
Bots are what we want them to be, therefore the ones who want to commit fraud, will instruct their bots to do just that. And this will blow up out of control. Pay-per-click will die.
8.
by izzygottlieb 4mo ago
The fraud isn't humans don't see ads, it's brands pay for impressions that are bots dressed as humans.
9.
Companies pay billions to show ads to bots. We can pay humans instead(nexertise.com)
7 points by izzygottlieb 4mo ago|10 comments