Companies pay billions to show ads to bots. We can pay humans instead | Hacker News Reader

Companies pay billions to show ads to bots. We can pay humans instead

nexertise.com

7 pointsizzygottlieb10 comments

You should set up an actual company for this. It doesn't inspire confidence having it be just you a person and legally it's worse for you too.

There is one — Nexertise

>Digital ad fraud is projected to cost brands $172B by 2028.

There's another obvious solution to that.

Pay per comprehension seems like one.

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.

How is 'person only looking at ad because they're getting paid to do that' a better model? Advertisers presumably want ads to go to people who might be interested in what is being advertised. But if other people are willing to take the bullet, and it means less crap for me to have to look at, sure why not.

Right, except - on a, strictly, personal level - I have no idea what you're talking about. There are several mechanisms, and layers of filters, which I employ - in order for any of my devices to >not< connect to (any!) advertizing, content, servers.

For example, starting with simple browser extensions, such as uBlock Origin, and that's WITH installing in manually on a Chrome, Chromium, browser. Just because I can, and because Google is doing everything to try and prevent it.

So... companies are showing ads to bots because only bots will accept them?

But what happens with AI? Do bots gets smarter and less tolerant of ads? ;)

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.

The fraud isn't humans don't see ads, it's brands pay for impressions that are bots dressed as humans.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com