6 ms·

The choice citizens would make every single time is to see the website without ads. Of course, publishers aren’t happy about that, since they would have to clos

by naIak 10mo ago

The choice citizens would make every single time is to see the website without ads. Of course, publishers aren’t happy about that, since they would have to close shop. Maybe the EC should consider both sides of the equation.

debugnik 10mo ago
Advertising has existed for centuries, I'm sure it can survive as an industry without requiring invasive tracking.
mkmk3 10mo ago
False dichotomy, just advertise based on the content of the site without spying on people
- naIak 10mo ago
  Loaded language, it can’t be “spying” if the user consents.
  - iamacyborg 10mo ago
    This only really rings true if the consent is informed, I don’t believe that that is the case.
  - piltdownman 10mo ago
    The preponderance of dark UI/UX patterns in advertising and cookie consent pop-ups, as well as the grey-hat browser fingerprinting and DRM based tracking, unfortunately stand testament to exactly that. Given that ~98% of Internet users couldn't even articulate what javascript does as part of their browsing experience, the exfiltration and reassembling of their PII via meta-data into sellable profiles for targeted auctions is completely beyond their capacity to comprehend or engage with. Thus consent is de facto ungrantable.
  - deleted 10mo ago
    [deleted]
- ApolloFortyNine 10mo ago
  Untargeted pay less than 90% of targeted ones generally. And there's not a lot of companies that can handle a 90% drop in revenue. The real solution would be to make users pay for the content, but charging for something that users used to get for "free" is also essentially impossible.
  - Tuna-Fish 10mo ago
    That's going to rapidly change if targeted ones are no longer available. Right now why would you spend money on untargeted ads when you have better options.
  - flatline 10mo ago
    We’ve been talking about federated micropayment technologies for some two decades. I’d happily pay for content but I refuse to sign up for 30+ publisher websites. If I could opt to pay $.25 for some article without giving the site all my personal data or incurring a subscription I’d be all for it. As it is I either “steal” the content through an archiving site or simply leave the site. More and more it’s the latter. I’d also happily pay some monthly fee for unlimited content from a consortium of publishers rather than disable my ad blocker, and let them sort out how much each one gets based on my browsing habits. None of these seem like hard technical problems, it’s certainly not impossible. I think the days of believing content comes without any cost are long behind us.
  - dylan604 10mo ago
    It doesn't have to be untargeted. You know the type of content the website hosts, therefore, you know a lot about the type of visitors. You can then charge appropriately for advertising that is targeted at those visitors. Don't show diaper ads on a site called Jalopnik. Instead show ads for Armorall, jack stands, tools, etc. When you visit a media site specializing in content like real houswives or kardashians, don't show the previously suggested ads. Instead, show ads on inane fast fashion, beauty products, luxury items, etc. Targeted ads are always dumb as they tend to push an item that you've looked into before purchasing, but never realize that item has been purchased and you are no longer interested. They never get that the person researched item but has not looked for some time for item. Let's now advertise accessories for that item. If it was a fridge, show stainless cleaning items, for dishwasher, show ads for different detergents or other kitchen related items. It's not hard. For whatever reasons, they can't do targeted well. Targeted doesn't work as advertised.
kevin_thibedeau 10mo ago
Ads don't require invasive tracking. They work in print, radio, television, and 90s web without tracking.
troupo 10mo ago
> Maybe the EC should consider both sides of the equation. They literally did. With GDPR. The poor struggling advertisers came up with the cookie banners they blamed on the EU. Oh no, cried the publishers. How can we ever live without storing all of user data for a decade or more? https://x.com/dmitriid/status/1817122117093056541 https://x.com/dmitriid/status/1817122117093056541
bsimpson 10mo ago
I make six figures, have read The Verge almost every day since it launched, and I have not yet bought a membership to pass their new paywall. The internet made information a commodity, and how we collectively pay for that information is still an open question 3 decades in. It's easy to say people want content "without ads," but there are also plenty who don't want to buy a membership to every single provider either.

by naIak 10mo ago

debugnik 10mo ago

Advertising has existed for centuries, I'm sure it can survive as an industry without requiring invasive tracking.

mkmk3 10mo ago

False dichotomy, just advertise based on the content of the site without spying on people

naIak 10mo ago
Loaded language, it can’t be “spying” if the user consents.
- iamacyborg 10mo ago
  This only really rings true if the consent is informed, I don’t believe that that is the case.
- piltdownman 10mo ago
  The preponderance of dark UI/UX patterns in advertising and cookie consent pop-ups, as well as the grey-hat browser fingerprinting and DRM based tracking, unfortunately stand testament to exactly that. Given that ~98% of Internet users couldn't even articulate what javascript does as part of their browsing experience, the exfiltration and reassembling of their PII via meta-data into sellable profiles for targeted auctions is completely beyond their capacity to comprehend or engage with. Thus consent is de facto ungrantable.
- deleted 10mo ago
  [deleted]
ApolloFortyNine 10mo ago
Untargeted pay less than 90% of targeted ones generally. And there's not a lot of companies that can handle a 90% drop in revenue. The real solution would be to make users pay for the content, but charging for something that users used to get for "free" is also essentially impossible.
- Tuna-Fish 10mo ago
  That's going to rapidly change if targeted ones are no longer available. Right now why would you spend money on untargeted ads when you have better options.
- flatline 10mo ago
  We’ve been talking about federated micropayment technologies for some two decades. I’d happily pay for content but I refuse to sign up for 30+ publisher websites. If I could opt to pay $.25 for some article without giving the site all my personal data or incurring a subscription I’d be all for it. As it is I either “steal” the content through an archiving site or simply leave the site. More and more it’s the latter. I’d also happily pay some monthly fee for unlimited content from a consortium of publishers rather than disable my ad blocker, and let them sort out how much each one gets based on my browsing habits. None of these seem like hard technical problems, it’s certainly not impossible. I think the days of believing content comes without any cost are long behind us.
- dylan604 10mo ago
  It doesn't have to be untargeted. You know the type of content the website hosts, therefore, you know a lot about the type of visitors. You can then charge appropriately for advertising that is targeted at those visitors. Don't show diaper ads on a site called Jalopnik. Instead show ads for Armorall, jack stands, tools, etc. When you visit a media site specializing in content like real houswives or kardashians, don't show the previously suggested ads. Instead, show ads on inane fast fashion, beauty products, luxury items, etc. Targeted ads are always dumb as they tend to push an item that you've looked into before purchasing, but never realize that item has been purchased and you are no longer interested. They never get that the person researched item but has not looked for some time for item. Let's now advertise accessories for that item. If it was a fridge, show stainless cleaning items, for dishwasher, show ads for different detergents or other kitchen related items. It's not hard. For whatever reasons, they can't do targeted well. Targeted doesn't work as advertised.

kevin_thibedeau 10mo ago

Ads don't require invasive tracking. They work in print, radio, television, and 90s web without tracking.

troupo 10mo ago

> Maybe the EC should consider both sides of the equation. They literally did. With GDPR. The poor struggling advertisers came up with the cookie banners they blamed on the EU. Oh no, cried the publishers. How can we ever live without storing all of user data for a decade or more? https://x.com/dmitriid/status/1817122117093056541 https://x.com/dmitriid/status/1817122117093056541

bsimpson 10mo ago

I make six figures, have read The Verge almost every day since it launched, and I have not yet bought a membership to pass their new paywall. The internet made information a commodity, and how we collectively pay for that information is still an open question 3 decades in. It's easy to say people want content "without ads," but there are also plenty who don't want to buy a membership to every single provider either.