What's the alternative? If every web user blocked all ads, content creators couldn't get any revenue and would stop making content.
The users have heard that too often. We're all out of trust to give.
If every web user blocked all ads, content creators couldn't get any revenue and would stop making content.
If every web user blocked all ads, content creators wouldn't be able to get any revenue from ads. There are other ways of getting revenue.
What's the alternative?
There's what @libeclipse said in his comment: if you somehow make this tech work in popular browsers, then there are people who might be willing to try it and maybe it becomes the accepted solution.
Other than that? Paid content. Yes, that makes it harder for content creators to get money and harder for content consumers to get free content. So what?
Are we really so convinced that everyone who creates anything deserves to be paid for it? Do we really need so much free content? More specifically, are we all so convinced of these two things that we're okay with giving up our rights on how to render web content on our own computers? 'Cause that's what it boils down to in the end.
There is such a thing as artificially inflated demand, which can be a problem, but I don't think it's likely that all advertising falls in that bucket.
I understand the desire to make money flow towards the content creators. I understand the desire for free content. I understand that the ads seem to "solve" both of those problems. I just don't understand why people think it's better to keep investing our time and energy into trying to save ads instead of looking for alternative solutions.
So why ads?
But yeah, personally I'd prefer a different system. I really like the idea of micropayments, but I don't know how that would look exactly.
I have a collaborate writing forum for young teens which don't have credit cards.
Maybe you think my forum shouldn't exist because it depends on ads, but as someone who grew up on a similar writing forum and developed my love for writing at a young age, I'd disagree.
The answer to your question is simple: it doesn't matter. Replace "content creator" with a more general "service provider" and my point remains exactly the same. There is no good reason why we need to defend ads, specifically, as a business model, other than "it's already in place". And while "being in place" is a rather strong force, more and more people are using ad blockers. I would consider that a pretty clear indicator that we need a better system.
There's one last thing I would like to clarify about my argument: no matter what systems we have or lack, the question is always who cares for something enough to pay for all of part of it. Ads try to take that question away, but they don't -- they merely make it seem like they do. But even if we didn't have the ads, there are always ways to shift the burden of payment away from the totality of the consumers.
For example, the service could be sustained through a donation drive. Wikipedia comes to mind right away, but so does the PTSA of the public school my son goes to. Another source of funding might be the service provider: there are people out there so passionate about what they do, that they'll pay the costs out of their own pockets. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying everyone should depend on altruism, but it's also an option that doesn't get brought up enough.
True and more than this, advertising could be a service to me.
Advertising has multiple functions. One is helping with discovery. Users have some problem they don't know someone is solving. Another is branding. Shove brand recognition down people's throats until they automatically reach for your product.
I use friends to discover new products and services, because they provide reliable suggestions and don't water down their reputation through brand building.
I was excited for the targeted ads movement, because of what it promised. I really want a recommendation engine that is smarter than everyone I know. That would be amazing. It's a giant world with lots of startups and makers, surely my monkey brain cannot possibly know enough people to track every one of these. So I'm ready, have the grand AI tell me what people are making and how it helps my life!
In practice, they didn't deliver. Targeted ads are like an idiot savant. I basically just get recommendations to buy whatever I just bought, even if that makes no sense. (You just bought a blender, why don't you buy two of them so you can have one on every counter!?)
It's the simplest logic that would work on a plurality of sales. Most people who buy paper towels later buy them again. Ok, new rule: people like buying what they just bought. No exceptions, logic done.
I know incredibly smart people work on targeted ads, so I can't imagine they're missing this. My best guess is that there's too much low hanging fruit to improve a recommendation engine, or that the other lucrative aspects of advertising (brand building) chase out any funding or development for a 100% user-interest focused ad-engine, er, recommendation-engine for products.
So I actually respect the impossible bar that BAT sets for itself. If we have an advertising system people will actually install a browser for (or pay a monthly subscription for), then we will have fixed advertising. Not before.
It's a good finish line. Whoever can cross it definitely wins.
Whenever someone argues that less content will be produced, I always feel that it just won't be enough reduction for consumers to care. Things like Youtube grew in a climate where being a full-time Youtuber was not possible like it is today.
The only down side I remember is that we only had one Mr. T fan page.
It's a great idea! I completely agree. If advertising on the web respected users and users could trust that they would be respected, users wouldn't feel the need to block ads.
With that said, it's possible that perhaps users have trusted this precise pitch in the past. In general, money has proven corrosive to respect, and ad-blockers stage a comeback as a result.
> What's the alternative? If every web user blocked all ads, content creators couldn't get any revenue and would stop making content.
Make something good enough that I want to pay for it. This isn't ridiculous or a pipe dream. I pay for The Economist and Nautilus because they are worth it to me.
I don't really see the need to trust advertisers in Brave's scheme here, either. You need to trust the browser to judge which ads are acceptable, but alternatively you need to trust the ad blocker to know which things are ads.
I understand the problem. I just think that this is a stupid solution. As for content creators getting revenue, how about selling it? Like we used to do?
Straight up selling content isn't the solution either, IMO. It would require a huge cultural shift in what the web is, which I don't think people are willing to do. More problematically, if all web content was a la carte paid for, that would lock out lower income people from a ton of information, which seems like a step backward, socially.
Right here is where it all falls apart. There _is no_ way.