It's a shame their revenue only got cut by 1/5 and not 1/1.
Talk about a lose-lose situation.
Also, not everyone has enough money to pay for a service, the rest of 7B people of the world isn't as rich as hacker news readers.
And if you don't care about a service, why care if it goes away?
No, it wouldn't. It would only cover a small fraction of creators, and definitely not enough with money.
Your attention is worth far more than the cost of the content/service to the advertisers. And the service is worth to you far more than your attention.
It is a trade where value is generated to both sides: you provide your attention, which is worth almost nothing to you, and receive a service in return.
> And if you don't care about a service, why care if it goes away?
Caring and liking are different. I hate my ISP, but it would be even worse if it went away.
No, clicking on those ads doesn't cost anything for those few people. Now they'd actually have to pay for the content, and subsidize everyone else, which wouldn't happen, they'd just move to a paywalled model.
Ads generate cross-subsidization, subscriptions generate pay-walling.
It is like some devs that contrary to other professionals, don't want to pay for their tools.
That is a categorically different bargain than merely having something that competes with the content for their attention. Just because the viewer may be ignorant of it doesn't mean they aren't (implicitly) making it.
People rich enough to pay for things are essentially subsidizing everyone else in the ad model with an irritating ad middleman. Subsidizing is fine, but let's be explicit about it with a library instead and avoid these gross privacy invasions.
The horror!
You know advertising is just another business model right? They have to give advertisers something they want in exchange for money. If they can't do that, they don't get money. It's a business.
Trading attention for content is a real business model. Just because you don't like doesn't make it any less real.
Not only that, the article we're discussing is ad-funded.
The reason you're reading it without paying for it is because it is ad-funded.
Nobody is propping up anything, let them do business.
Don't like the ads? Don't access those websites. Vote with your wallet and clicks.
Did you read TFA? Browser vendors that allow invasive tracking are propping up this model.
Not such a real business model after that. And it WILL happen, because ads are a nuisance and the browser market is competitive. You're fighting with gravity at this point.
There would no longer be profit incentive to promote clickbait articles that just re-link to the original source, no more fake news sites being spread around social media, no more perverse incentives to get as many clicks as possible without providing any actual value of your own.
Bring it on! I want this future so much.
Lowering it would mean less revenue for content creators.
If they can get away with less tracking their ads will be less effective but revenue for the content creators will not be affected because it is ‘as low as they are willing to go’.
It does, it increases marginal advertising efficiency, which makes more ads economically viable, which then increases ad spending, and creator revenue.
If you accept that kind of argument you can justify just about anything.
Which is worth $0 (or close to it) for them.
People are willing to trade their attention for free services and content.
You don't get to decide that for other people.
All in all, I don't think much will be lost. We have such an abundance of content, from stories to music, graphics and movies, that we would need lifetimes to enjoy it.
The advertising industry is not the benefactor that you're trying to paint them as, just a bunch of people trying to make a buck by exploiting others in a legal way. And soon, some of those ways will not be legal any more.
Most "free content" is paid by ads. Most hosting is paid by ads. Most online services are paid by ads. Do you ever use WhatsApp? Gone. Google Maps? Gone. Oh, that Guardian article we're discussing right now? Gone.
> The advertising industry is not the benefactor that you're trying to paint them as
Who talked about benefactors? They're just a business like any other. I hate ads, but I know that they fund a lot of the content and services I use.
Fine! iMessage and Telegram doesn’t show any adds to me so they go nowhere. If telegram tomorrow says to me - 10$ a year or ads, I gladly pay. Google Maps? Screw this burp of evil anyway, Apple Maps and Here We Go maps are go nowhere any time soon. Guardian? Well, I have adblocker enabled anyway and donate 10$ when I happen to read something well written.
I had an experience recently. One of podcasters that I’m listening to created website and started to treat his podcast more seriously. Also he created a Patreon account with clearly defined goals. I went and had my Patreon account created as soon as I had seen his and now I’m doing a monthly contribution. That guy went to 4K$ in two days.
Why I’m saying this? Well, because all other subscriptions that I have doesn’t provide _that_ value for me so if they all are gone tomorrow, I won’t even notice that.
So, if being free is the only reason people use something to kill time that means that th thing has no value for them ang can and should go away. I have never disabled my Adblock at Forbes and never payed for anything paywalled. I simply didn’t read those articles and I don’t feel like I’ve lost much.
I think it actually for the best if many of tools/services/publishers will go away and people will have more incentive to actually pay for things if they consider th m valuable. And if people are not ready to give a way a cup of coffee for monthly subscription then well.... nobody needs that service then.
I was really happy about WhatsApp at first, that it is a payed service - 30$ a year or something and then Facebook bought it...
Some people can pay cash for products, others can't and will happily exchange their attention for the service.
You proposal boils down to "rich people like me will be fine, screw the rest".
That sounds strange for me, it like buying a Bentley and complaining that insurance is too expensive.
On that Thinkpad thing, I have multiple questions, just because you're trying to induce emotional response here: does your mom uses Adblock? Did you install it for her? Why can't you buy a subscription for her if you care so much? Do you really want you mom trade her and probably other relatives personal data for access to some shady newspaper with dubious quality of journalism?
No, I'm talking about the entire ad-funded internet. Including, for example, the very Guardian article we're discussing.
So yep, you're suggesting that tszyn's mom should not access content she can't pay for directly.
You forget that most people isn't as rich as you or most HN readers.
You vastly underestimate how much content is created for free. Have you heard of Wikipedia? Do you realize how many people do not choose to monetize their creations?
>You forget that most people isn't as rich as you or most HN readers.
This problem was solved before the internet with libraries. If you can't afford a newspaper article you get it from the library. The same could be accomplished with an online library with daily limited access or subsidized unlimited access for the poor.
Poor people are not good for showing ads to anyway. As ad networks get more and more invasive they will be able to discriminate and refuse to pay the guardian for a view from your mom because there is no expected value there.
Oh, yes, been an editor there for the past 10 years.
Now what % of the content on the internet do you think is created and delivered in a completely ad-free paywall-free way?
Still, there continue to exist gratis, ad-free services. If you want to avoid that your mom is taken advantage of, point her to those. I would also recommend installing an ad-blocker, but let's be honest, she already has one, doesn't she?
Signal is gratis and ad-free and so is Telegram AFAIK.
Your line of argumentation that the advertising industry is a blessing for the poor is simply embarrassing. They're taking advantage of the ignorance of the majority.
You also keep repeating that people are exchanging their attention for products when that's clearly false. They are exchanging potentially damaging personal information which is stored forever and that can be given away to anyone. That's a very crappy deal, but most people are clueless about what's happening.
Any financial interests related to the ad industry that you'd like to disclose? For someone that hates ads you seem to be their biggest defender.
I fail to see why internet ads being more like TV, radio, and print ads means that free services would go away. Rough geographic and interest-based targeting would still be possible, just like it is in those media.
Internet ads have drawn much of the money (disproportionately to their audience draw) from those other sources because they are more valuable because of better targeting and tracking. Reducing that reduces the value of internet ads, which reduces the level ofmserviced they will support; ones that are currently marginal will fail, and ones that are currently more solid will become marginal.
With a web site, the more people that visit it, the more it costs for hosting and bandwidth.
Websites having a higher marginal cost for each new audience member compared to TV and radio might have an affect on how effective ads have to be to pay for the content. I could see web ads needing to be more effective than radio or TV ads because of that marginal cost.
[1] well, sort of. If a show is popular, actors on the show might be able to negotiate higher pay, for example.
Nope, I use LINE, which is monetized by sticker packs
> Google Maps?
Nope, I use a local mapping service, which while it has a monthly fee is far better
> Oh, that Guardian article we're discussing right now?
I'd be happy to pay for a Spotify/Netflix-style subscription to journalistic content, but the newspapers are still busy fighting each other rather than their own obsolescence so I don't see that happening.
Or just people with money should be allowed to have access to content?
That is the case for pretty much everything non-digital and schools and education as well and thus an entirely reasonable position to take. You might then argue that libraries should be expanded, but that is a separate issue.
Also, just like with adblock plus none of these features forbid advertising as such. Advertisement which are "acceptable" and non-privacy invasive are completely unaffected and I am very much in favor of enforcing some reasonable consumer protection bith technologically and by law.
> Wait, are you actually defending that only rich people should have access to content?
I'm not sure how you got that out of the parent comment. It says "this is not a new problem, but it is a problem". A system that relentlessly tracks users and their habits is not the solution. If for no other reason than it sequesters poor people to parts of the web that track them, while rich people can afford to pay for content.
>>That is the case for pretty much everything non-digital and schools and education as well and thus an entirely reasonable position to take.
Please explain to me how "just people with money should be allowed to have access to content" being "an entirely reasonable position to take" doesn't fit into that?
I am arguing that though the position is reasonable, the ad industry as we know it is a piss poor answer. Poor people paying with their privacy is bad.
I feel like you're overstating. Yes, only the richest of people, those who can afford to purchase a newspaper, should be able to read the news. For those poor people, maybe there's some organization, like a public library that could invest in things that are seen as a public good? Or organizations wishing to facilitate people passing time, like barber shops, coffee shops, or waiting rooms, would buy them and leave them strewn about as bait for those poorer customers.
Personally, I really wish microtransactions were more of a thing starting in the late-90s. I feel like Patreon and others have tried to fill that void. I think it's a false choice between every byte of data behind a paywall and advertisers clawing for more information about every bowel movement in order to cover your screen with promotions.
Wait, what am I reading? Only people with money should have the right to access news and information?
Yes, it's true that they already have that through national television, cheap newspapers, book exchanges and donations, but if you want something done right, you need to do it yourself.
Nice ad hominem.
I hate ads, but I know that ads fund a lot of the services and content I consume online. I always have the option to now use those services or consume that content and avoid the ads.
Heck, half of HN's commenters would be unemployed if not for ads. Which might actually be a net win for society.
You're pulling basically the same narrow quote, ignoring the rest what others are contributing.
IRL microtransactions (nickels and quarters), fueled the vending machine and newspaper economy for the last century. It's a shame there's no digital equivalent because it's very difficult to make credit card transactions under $5 profitable.
Also, getting rid of user-tracking wouldn't get rid of Internet ads.
You do not argue in good faith.
Where I'm from there are unemployment and welfare systems in place so that people shouldn't be so poor they can't afford a basic lifestyle (which includes being able to participate in the public discourse - i.e. have access to media)
Great times!
...
There was a lots of video on the web before YT. Video was better before YT, you actually had to put some effort into it. Now YT is cheap, shitty, my-first-VFX projects as far as the eye can see.
My wife sometimes watches a video then leaves the "next video" running in the background while she does other stuff. Often it's people talking about movies in clickbait-titled videos. Their primary skill seems to be talking for several minutes without actually saying anything, and avoiding the video title's topic for as long as possible. It's kind of impressive, but does nothing to enrich anyone's life and drowns out better content with worse SEO.
I'm pretty happy with the content on YouTube - lots of fun tech stuff like EEVBlog, Techmoan, bigclive, the 8-bit guy etc that would never happen on regular TV. A lot of them seem to make half their living from Patreon though.
Just because that doesn't appeal to your taste doesn't mean that it is bad. Stop judging what other people like to watch.
You argument is essentially "people who make videos that I don't like should be pushed out".
How does taste render the observations of an individual invalid? Are you so genius that you can make such ...judgments... yourself? But I can't judge because I have tastes???
Here's the difference: I'm not judging. I don't believe in a "quality bar". I'm not judging which content should be created, sponsored or paid for.
Let people create and publish content, and let people vote with their clicks, eyes and wallets.
But you, no, you think that only content that passes your quality bar should be funded.
Don't like content or ads? Don't watch/view them. Nobody is forcing you to. But you want to force others not to view them.
I hate ads, but they pay for a lot of the content and services I use, and I'd rather view them than pay for them.
Don't like them? Don't use those services and content. Your call.
You keep putting words in people's mouths all over this thread. It doesn't make for interesting conversation.
This is clearly a sensitive subject for you, but please engage people in an honest manner.
Yeah, I remember that too. What is your point?
That's stupidly cheap, and much more easily available than trying to get your content online in the 90s without being at a university or corporation that could act as a patron of your online activity.
But continuing on from the patronage angle, Amazon etc are already doing massive things even without external compute customers, so their economies of scale for providing servers & bandwidth are already in place.
http://www.businessinsider.com/new-york-times-print-versus-o...
That resembles what I remember reading for a decade+ about the print-to-digital newspaper transition: online ads command lower rates than print ads. Which is really mysterious, if online ads backed with persistent tracking and targeting are truly more effective.
Do you think someone who trades their compact car in for a truck will spend less on gasoline because it's not as efficient?
Advertising was massive before the Internet, it's massive now, and it will be massive even if we prevent them from inferring life threatening secrets like sexual preferences for better targeted ads.
Please explain to me how a $1 ad which generated $0.01 in marginal profit, but now generates -$0.01 in marginal profit will continue to be funded. I'd love to know.
I feel like that problem, like GDPR, should be read as: you have to ask permission, rather than you are not allowed to. I think retargeting, well done, is a great tool. I hate myself for forgetting to include tea towels in my last Amazon order. However, without a ‘Get out of my face’ option (and more generally better controls) those ads are incredibly hurtful and need to be gone. I personally would do shameful things to remove Taboola from my mobile browsers (embedded in social media apps).
Information is power, and such a database could be used for manipulation, blackmail, fraud, etc.
But if you think that's acceptable because it might help you remember to order tea towels, what can I say... thank goodness the EU GDPR is there to save your butt.
From experience, if the information is true, appropriate and sensical, the benefits are clear and valued by both parties. There is a problem when they are wrong and the user can’t provide feedback.
> such a database could be used for manipulation, blackmail, fraud
Which is why I refuse to keep private information about me accessible to a company whose security practices I don’t trust.
I’m not sure your condescension hits the mark.