Because it makes advertising more expensive, which in turn makes the products and services you use more expensive.
A lot of content, especially newspaper/magazine articles, at least here in Germany, already are paid-only, either through subscriptions or both subscriptions and alternatively microtransactions (mostly more in-depth reporting). The UK Guardian and the German taz employ voluntary payments/subscriptions with some success last I heard. US media seems to be pushing a lot more for subscriptions now ("you got free 3 articles this month")
Creators on patreon and on OnlyFans (NSFW) seem to be making good money off of subscriptions, on a smaller scale (and if they sell a product that has some demand, of course).
Relatedly the greater independence of creators from advertising would in turn mean fewer ads, which in turn means potentially more competition for the available ad space again and thus potentially higher prices.
If someone in state/country X buys something from a site in state/country Y, both X and Y may levy taxes on that transaction.
Many have thresholds for small businesses, where you don't have to collect taxes if your total business volume is below some threshold. For US states, the threshold is often of the form "more than $T total sales OR more than N sales".
With microtransactions, it is easy to exceed N sales even though you are not actually collecting much money, and then the costs of preparing and filing your quarterly sales tax reports can exceed your revenue.
Advertiser supported sites don't suffer from this problem. If someone in X visits a site in Y and Y gets payed by an advertiser for showing an ad to that person, the site does not have to worry about taxes in X, and in Y the ad revenue will just be income that gets dealt with on their income taxes.
Until we can get microtransaction-friendly cross jurisdiction sales tax reform microtransactions are going to have limited viability, at least for sites that want to operate legally.
Most content I consume is, like your comment, already shared by users without them receiving any compensation for it. It is usually someone who is not the content creator that profits from content on the internet.
Personally, I use ads as a signal to avoid buying certain products. If the ads are too prominent and omnipresent, it's an indication for me that I would be paying quite a premium on their marketing. But that's just me.
Your channel efficiency unavoidably goes down, which increases your cost of customer acquisition because your other channels cannot pick up all of the slack.
Increasing the cost of customer acquisition is going to be bad for your business. You will either need to reduce costs (by hiring less, for example), or increase your prices.
I think people are misconstruing me here. I'm not saying Google advertising is somehow fundamentally necessary to the economy. I'm just saying that it is straight up incorrect to think that there aren't legitimate downsides to removing their ability to police fraud.
But there are also (potentially huge and beneficial) opportunity costs. We will never see alternative business models which are not viable in the existing ecosystem.
The tracking part isn't necessary for fraud detection not even for conversation tracking. It's only necessary for "personalized ads" aka spying on users.
Living in an advertising-saturated and/or privacy-deprived world is also a "cost" borne by members of society.
Because economics. I know this intimately. I have a product we manufacture and sell on Amazon along with other channels. And if I am saving $1 on a customer acquisition, I am lowering my price one dollar because that would mean I can sell more at the same profit. Because if I try to keep that extra dollar, my competition will lower their price. Basically the cost of keeping that saved dollar is more than the gain from lowering the price a dollar. That’s how competition is supposed to work.
I know my cost of goods sold and my cost of sales down to the penny and have a pretty good idea of the elasticity curve for my product: if I lower my price by $1, I would sell x more bottles. However if I lower my price by $1 right now, I would decrease in profitability unless my costs also decreased by $1. There is a point on the curve that represents the optimal price.
It would seem that fundamental microeconomics is something not taught in many schools and that’s tragic because you get statements like “who’s to say this decreased expense is going to be passed down to consumers.” Because competition is what makes this statement silly in principle.
I don't really think that the students are the ones being "helped" when google gets paid $90 a click on student loan refinancing queries. They end up paying that $$ in the end.