201–210 of 472 posts
Google Contributor can't work, for two reasons. 1. As soon as it becomes too widespread, Google will nerf it. They rely almost entirely on advertising for their revenues. There's just too much money for them to not water the scheme down in future. Remember when cable TV was going to be ad-free? 2. It only works inside Google's semi-walled garden. This is true of every microsubscription scheme so far built (Spotify, A…
Fuck you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But it's not your website. It's someone else's. Someone who created the content and pays to keep it online for you to consume.
OK, then modify the statement, but use the same mobster voice: "It would be a shame if your browser got overloaded with pop-overs, malware and javascript trackers. You know, we can keep that from happening for a price."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But it's not your website. It's someone else's. Someone who created the content and pays to keep it online for you to consume.
As soon as their content hits my client though, they don't have any right to control what my client does with it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You sound too confident about what you think drives your purchasing behavior.
Especially since he has almost certainly seen Netflix ads, and proclaims himself to be a customer.
Prime I use because it's free right now, though I'll probably cancel it at the end of the month because I don't like it that much. NowTv I subscribe to because it turned out to be the easiest way to get GoT when I decided I probably shouldn't pirate any more. I found out about it because I searched, not because someone intruded into my life and demanded my attention.
For the ~price of Netflix subscription, I only get 25-50% fewer ads? Nah...too expensive.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So why on earth are you going to those sites? I'm not. But 95% of web sites out there are replicating content one way or the other. That's literally what this is. No it's not. That's a different model and I have no objections against it. This is a model where Google decides to give money to sites, and that is any site that's running AdSense not just the ones with original content. My argument is about why some of us…
No, it's the model where Google is giving money to the sites you visit, in proportion to the level you visit them. Since you claim not to visit the sites that are "shitty content creators", you're not going to be supporting them in any way. So what exactly is your real objection? Contributor might not be the answer. But if nothing else, this is a great "put your money where your mouth is" experiment. Suddenly all the…
What do you think the possible consequences of this are? Will that be a net positive or a net negative for content quality on the web?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I am literally a worthless view to them. Well,you don't decide your own worth in this system. Your first mistake is assuming the only usefulness they get from you is when you click on an ad to buy something. That's a very naive view of advertising.
>> Your first mistake is assuming the only usefulness they get from you is when you click on an ad to buy something. To the advertisers? No I'm sure they think that 'brand awareness' is useful too, only it's not, if you annoy me into noticing your brand I will deliberately not buy it.
But that's also irrelevant. If they are paying to have pictures put in front of you for brand awareness, then that's what they are paying for,not ad-clicks. Assuming you can completely understand their business, strategies and intentions to the point that you can accurately judge what is best for them is not just naive, it's hubris.
The biggest problem of this is that it only works on Google's ads, but there are far more obnoxious ads that will result in the user wanting and installing an adblocker anyway, and then why bother with Contributor?
It's pretty brilliant really.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So why on earth are you going to those sites? I'm not. But 95% of web sites out there are replicating content one way or the other. That's literally what this is. No it's not. That's a different model and I have no objections against it. This is a model where Google decides to give money to sites, and that is any site that's running AdSense not just the ones with original content. My argument is about why some of us…
No, it's the model where Google is giving money to the sites you visit, in proportion to the level you visit them. Since you claim not to visit the sites that are "shitty content creators", you're not going to be supporting them in any way. So what exactly is your real objection? Contributor might not be the answer. But if nothing else, this is a great "put your money where your mouth is" experiment. Suddenly all the…
And by the way, we're paying for content. It's called books, magazines, newspapers, kindle shorts, you name it. Half of the original content out there comes from established news agencies, and most of them don't even run AdSense.
And please, spare me with this false dilemma, we're either bombarded with ads or the web will cease to exist. I've been hearing that for more than a decade. Advertising evolves. Even if 80% of users adopted ad blocking technologies advertising would find a venue to reach users. It's doing that for decades.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But it's not your website. It's someone else's. Someone who created the content and pays to keep it online for you to consume.
OK, then modify the statement, but use the same mobster voice: "It would be a shame if your browser got overloaded with pop-overs, malware and javascript trackers. You know, we can keep that from happening for a price."