Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by nradov 3085 days ago
That would be an acceptable outcome.
1 comments

Reduced economic activity, increased unemployment and poverty is for you an acceptable outcome so that you personally don't have to see ads?

Wow...

> Reduced economic activity, increased unemployment and poverty

"Won't someone PLEASE think of the children!!!!"

There are already non-ad-supported funding alternatives for small creators (like Patreon). Maybe the loss of an ad-supported web would finally create sufficient interest in development of micropayment and microfunding services to help the rest.

Edit: and maybe we can finally rid the web of clickbait and Taboola-style garbage content.

It wouldn't work.

Ads work because you're trading something that is worth more to the publisher than to you.

Let's imagine a utility currency called bananas.

A piece of your attention is worth 0 bananas to you. But it is worth 10 bananas to a publisher.

The cost of creating and serving you a piece of content is 5 bananas to the publisher, and the value of it to you is 2 bananas.

If there were no ads, you'd be willing to pay 2 bananas to the publisher, which would not cover the cost. Therefore, the publisher and content creators would go out of business. You wouldn't be willing to pay the full cost (5 bananas), because the content isn't worth that much to you.

Outome:

You: 0 bananas

Publisher: 0 bananas

By seeing the ad, you generate 10 bananas of value to the publisher and content creator, while you get 2 bananas of value by receiving the content.

Outcome:

You: 2 bananas

Publisher: 10 bananas

Direct funding will never fully replace ad revenue.

The publisher just needs to deliver something that has 6 bananas of value to me to make this example work. That's exactly congruent with a web where high-value content is rewarded and clickbait and spam is not. Sounds like a win-win to me.

Consider all of the modern content industries that aren't primarily ad supported - movies, music, AAA video games, books. In this context the ad-supported nature of web content looks like an aberration, not an ideal to strive for.

> Sounds like a win-win to me.

Might be for you, but for those people who are out of jobs, and those who will lose access to content might think differently.

I would be happy to support welfare payments and free education for those unemployed advertisers and "content creators" to learn to do something productive with their lives. No one is entitled to a permanent career in any particular field.
Despite the "reduced economic activity", people seem fine with rules against lots of things -- e.g. spam and assassination markets. Besides, the money saved on web advertising doesn't get put under a mattress, the company can do something else like ... buy more TV ads or put it in an index fund. Haha, jk it's another raise for the CEO.
Are you comparing assassination with ads?

Seriously?