5 ms·

The same could be said with all advertising and surveillance. No one wants to be advertised to, but powerful lobbies argue that ending ads will lower consumpti

The same could be said with all advertising and surveillance. No one wants to be advertised to, but powerful lobbies argue that ending ads will lower consumption and thus harm the economy; and no politician wants to lower GDP. No one wants to be spied on, but powerful lobbies argue tracking people allow better security; and no politician wants to be soft on crime and terrorism.

phkahler 11mo ago
>> No one wants to be advertised to, but powerful lobbies argue that ending ads will lower consumption and thus harm the economy; and no politician wants to lower GDP. I doubt that. People tend to spend their money regardless. Advertising just determines what they spend it on.
- GJim 11mo ago
  Famously.... Advertising is only used heavily when all products are similar, otherwise the best would naturally rise to the top. For example, washing powder/liquid is advertised heavily on TV, yet do you really believe one brand of powder/liquid gets your clothes cleaner than any other?
- tcfhgj 11mo ago
  not so sure about that, I am pretty sure ads promote materialism and consumerism, probably even leading to people working more to be able to afford more
- tclancy 11mo ago
  Yes, but then you might consume beer based on how it tastes rather than the likelihood of winding up in an impromptu volleyball game with a bunch of Nordic bikini models. So you see where the entrenched players want to keep the status quo.
- regentbowerbird 11mo ago
  Our culture values the act of buying things for social status (consumerism), and one of the main reasons for that is advertising. You're assuming people would still have the same amount of money, but for most money is not a given, and people strive to earn money precisely because they want to buy the things they were advertised. Without the social pressure to acquire things one doesn't need, it's very possible people might simply work less and use that time for other things.
Workaccount2 11mo ago
The single most powerful lobby, by far, to the point that it is essentially the only lobby, is the enormous mass of people who refuse to pay money for content. Absolutely refuse. Even when you give them the option to pay, with no ads or tracking, the conversion rate is still around 0.5-1%.
- DangitBobby 11mo ago
  This is a false dichotomy. You can have ads without tracking.
- regentbowerbird 11mo ago
  People are willing to pay for things they value. Those people who "refuse to pay money for content" probably go to the cinema, perhaps purchase magazines, purchase drinks with friends, etc. We should however make it easier to pay for content online; let's implement HTTP 402 and integrate it into the users' browser and internet bill to reduce friction. Who wants to create an account and enter their credit card details to read a single article or watch a single video?
  - Workaccount2 11mo ago
    >People are willing to pay for things they value No, they overwhelmingly are not. When given the opportunity to not pay, and do so anonymously (no social shame), the actual pay rates drop to the 1-5% range. This is a clear trend from thousands of creators who give simple payment options to those who wish to support them directly. The conversion rates from "ad-supported (but blocked)" to "paying member" are usually around 5% of the active audience. The numbers are atrocious despite the deafening virtue signalling of comment sections ("I always pay creators to support them!")
    - regentbowerbird 11mo ago
      You just assert "no" to my suggestion that people don't pay for these things because they just don't value them enough to pay for them, which doesn't really move the conversation forward. There's loadsa stuff more important in life than youtube videos so it's unsurprising the conversion rate is low.
streptomycin 11mo ago
In some sense, "no one wants to be advertised to" is similar to "no one wants to pay for stuff". Like yeah it'd be nice if my groceries were free, but that's not very realistic, the grocery store would just close if they had to give everything away. Advertising is similar - a cost we pay so that websites can make some money in exchange for their services. Most ad supported websites would just disappear without them.
- regentbowerbird 11mo ago
  In some sense I agree but there is a fundamental difference. I pay for my groceries because I have the fundamental need for sustenance, and that requires land and toil. I have neither and therefore I pay someone else; but for me to survive it is necessary that _someone_ perform that work. My need for websites is much less predominant and really I could live without. So of course I bounce when mildly interesting websites ask to host cookies on my browser or want me to create an account and enter my card details. If one considers maximizing utility the goal of economic science, then this is in fact good, as it redirects me to more useful venues like doing chores I'd been putting off instead of mindlessly scrolling online. Some metrics such as GDP however might suffer.
  - streptomycin 11mo ago
    I suspect that most people would not vote for a government policy that puts their favorite websites out of business so they can do more chores :)

phkahler 11mo ago

>> No one wants to be advertised to, but powerful lobbies argue that ending ads will lower consumption and thus harm the economy; and no politician wants to lower GDP. I doubt that. People tend to spend their money regardless. Advertising just determines what they spend it on.

GJim 11mo ago
Famously.... Advertising is only used heavily when all products are similar, otherwise the best would naturally rise to the top. For example, washing powder/liquid is advertised heavily on TV, yet do you really believe one brand of powder/liquid gets your clothes cleaner than any other?
tcfhgj 11mo ago
not so sure about that, I am pretty sure ads promote materialism and consumerism, probably even leading to people working more to be able to afford more
tclancy 11mo ago
Yes, but then you might consume beer based on how it tastes rather than the likelihood of winding up in an impromptu volleyball game with a bunch of Nordic bikini models. So you see where the entrenched players want to keep the status quo.
regentbowerbird 11mo ago
Our culture values the act of buying things for social status (consumerism), and one of the main reasons for that is advertising. You're assuming people would still have the same amount of money, but for most money is not a given, and people strive to earn money precisely because they want to buy the things they were advertised. Without the social pressure to acquire things one doesn't need, it's very possible people might simply work less and use that time for other things.

Workaccount2 11mo ago

The single most powerful lobby, by far, to the point that it is essentially the only lobby, is the enormous mass of people who refuse to pay money for content. Absolutely refuse. Even when you give them the option to pay, with no ads or tracking, the conversion rate is still around 0.5-1%.

DangitBobby 11mo ago
This is a false dichotomy. You can have ads without tracking.
regentbowerbird 11mo ago
People are willing to pay for things they value. Those people who "refuse to pay money for content" probably go to the cinema, perhaps purchase magazines, purchase drinks with friends, etc. We should however make it easier to pay for content online; let's implement HTTP 402 and integrate it into the users' browser and internet bill to reduce friction. Who wants to create an account and enter their credit card details to read a single article or watch a single video?
- Workaccount2 11mo ago
  >People are willing to pay for things they value No, they overwhelmingly are not. When given the opportunity to not pay, and do so anonymously (no social shame), the actual pay rates drop to the 1-5% range. This is a clear trend from thousands of creators who give simple payment options to those who wish to support them directly. The conversion rates from "ad-supported (but blocked)" to "paying member" are usually around 5% of the active audience. The numbers are atrocious despite the deafening virtue signalling of comment sections ("I always pay creators to support them!")
  - regentbowerbird 11mo ago
    You just assert "no" to my suggestion that people don't pay for these things because they just don't value them enough to pay for them, which doesn't really move the conversation forward. There's loadsa stuff more important in life than youtube videos so it's unsurprising the conversion rate is low.

streptomycin 11mo ago

In some sense, "no one wants to be advertised to" is similar to "no one wants to pay for stuff". Like yeah it'd be nice if my groceries were free, but that's not very realistic, the grocery store would just close if they had to give everything away. Advertising is similar - a cost we pay so that websites can make some money in exchange for their services. Most ad supported websites would just disappear without them.

regentbowerbird 11mo ago
In some sense I agree but there is a fundamental difference. I pay for my groceries because I have the fundamental need for sustenance, and that requires land and toil. I have neither and therefore I pay someone else; but for me to survive it is necessary that _someone_ perform that work. My need for websites is much less predominant and really I could live without. So of course I bounce when mildly interesting websites ask to host cookies on my browser or want me to create an account and enter my card details. If one considers maximizing utility the goal of economic science, then this is in fact good, as it redirects me to more useful venues like doing chores I'd been putting off instead of mindlessly scrolling online. Some metrics such as GDP however might suffer.
- streptomycin 11mo ago
  I suspect that most people would not vote for a government policy that puts their favorite websites out of business so they can do more chores :)