Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by Hasu 732 days ago
> With crypto we are surely getting to spitting distance of advertisers paying users directly to look at ads instead of paying Google to organise the web such that users look at ads.

Who would take that deal? Getting paid $.02 in some cryptocurrency to look at an ad? So that I can then maybe spend more money on the product being advertised? Why would I ever agree to that? It's a bad deal for me. Why would the ad agency do that? It's a bad deal for them versus paying for captive eyeballs.
2 comments
roenxi 732 days ago
> Why would I ever agree to that?

You're already looking at the ad. $0.02 > $0.00, so the situation is a strict improvement.

link
Hasu 731 days ago
No, it isn't. I use AdBlock and generally when I allow ads it's because I have no other way to pay someone who made something I appreciate.

I am happy to pay money to remove ads, but it would take a lot more money paid to me to add them in! Certainly not an amount that would be worth advertisers to pay me.

link
roenxi 731 days ago
Well, ok then this feature isn't for you. But you have an extra option if you want to make $0.02.

But in practice we know there is large group of people working to fund the internet, and I reckon the fair split might turn out to be that all of them (ad viewer, ad placer and content provider) get a slice instead of just the last 2. Think of it as the ad viewer's subsidy for supporting people who use ad blockers.

link
digging 732 days ago
> So that I can then maybe spend more money on the product being advertised?

You can spend it on anything you like, actually.

link