Live data from Hacker News

Google Contributor: Buy an ad removal pass for the web

contributor.google.com

81–90 of 269 posts

Re: Google Contributor: Buy an ad removal pass for the web

#81

Cancelled already: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Contributor Google Contributor was a program run by Google that allowed users in the Google Network of content sites to view the websites without any advertisements that are administered, sorted, and maintained by Google. The program started with prominent websites, like The Onion and Mashable among others, to test this service. After November 2015, the program…

The first iteration was cancelled, this is the new iteration that launched yesterday.

Re: Google Contributor: Buy an ad removal pass for the web

#82
post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Maybe if Google went with "Pay us $10 per month for us not to show you any AdSense anywhere on the web", this would be successful And more importantly, with the guarantee of "no tracking whatsoever" (rather than just not 'showing' ads). Then, some of my friends would start trusting Google again (and are already willing to pay for something like that).

How are they going to show you no ads if they don't know it's you? They have to track you for it to work.

I think GP means that you're signed in with Google, so you have a cookie linking your browser to your account, but Google does not do anything with the metadata from the requests that include the cookie of a paying contributor.

Re: Google Contributor: Buy an ad removal pass for the web

#83

Whether it comes from Google, or someone else I believe this is the only way the web survives. Content creators need to be able to charge different amounts for different quality content. In depth, well researched reporting needs to be able to earn more than a buzzfeed article. That's not possible with a flat "per-eyeball" cost, where the revenue to the content creator is uncorrelated with the cost to create or the va…

If the time taken to read the buzzfeed article is the same as the high quality report, it is worth the same to an advertiser. The high quality report does good for the organization in terms of retention, a reader is likely to come back and read it if he finds good content.

Market segmentation also routinely leads some advertisers to target the kind of people who prefer high quality reporting. Economist vs Daily Mail, as an analogy.

Re: Google Contributor: Buy an ad removal pass for the web

#85
post #53
post #37

Maybe if Google went with "Pay us $10 per month for us not to show you any AdSense anywhere on the web", this would be successful. In this form, I highly doubt it.

Sounds a bit like good 'ol protection money, though ("You don't want some malware on your pc, do you?"[0]). A business classic but not exactly what you'd want from a tech company. [0] http://www.businessinsider.de/android-malware-spreads-using-...

Google is the one ad network I'd expect to at least make an effort to scan for and filter malware-infested ads, for one reason: They're a household name and they have other products that actual consumers use.

If there were a headline tomorrow that some random ad network distributed malware onto consumer's computers, everyone would say "never heard of them before" and move on. If the headline were "Google spreads malware onto consumer's computers", it's reasonable to expect that at least a few people would get mad (such as those affected by the malware) and stop using some other Google product(s). So that's a risk that Google has to consider when asking whether malware scanning is a justified expense.

Of course, this doesn't take into account the follow-up question whether malware scanning at the ad-network level (or anywhere, really) offers any sort of protection. (It doesn't appear to be effective, as evidenced by your link.) I, for one, have not whitelisted Google ads (or anything else) in any of my ad/tracking/malware blockers.

Re: Google Contributor: Buy an ad removal pass for the web

#86
post #71
post #27

I already have an ad removal pass, it's called uBlock origin.

Haha, precisely. On HN, a common idea is that if companies offered ad-free versions for a price, people would pay. But why would you? You can get the ad-free versions for free.

Why not? Lots of people already support creators via Patreon who give their content away for free.

Re: Google Contributor: Buy an ad removal pass for the web

#87

I like how Google doesn't remove ads from it's own sites

Their own ads of course fit the "standards" that they themselves designed. Any other way and they'd only harm their own business model. This is a defensive move against full-scale ad-blockers, nothing more.

Re: Google Contributor: Buy an ad removal pass for the web

#88
post #71
post #27

I already have an ad removal pass, it's called uBlock origin.

Haha, precisely. On HN, a common idea is that if companies offered ad-free versions for a price, people would pay. But why would you? You can get the ad-free versions for free.

Prisoner's dilemma: If only one ad-supported site switches to pay-per-view or a subscription model, people will go to the other ad-supported sites instead. It would take all of them to switch.

And if that happens, the experience would be strictly worse for the consumer. Every individual is going to have access to less content because they're not going to subscribe to every site that might conceivably have an insightful article at some point.

What does work is patronage-supported content, but only for certain types of content. For example, if Youtube were to remove ads tomorrow, I would expect most channels with original content to survive on crowdsourced patronage (i.e. Patreon or similar), but I would definitely not expect Patreon to be able to support investigative journalism. (It would be great if it were! But I don't see it happening.)

Re: Google Contributor: Buy an ad removal pass for the web

#89
post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Haha, precisely. On HN, a common idea is that if companies offered ad-free versions for a price, people would pay. But why would you? You can get the ad-free versions for free.

Why not? Lots of people already support creators via Patreon who give their content away for free.

We'll see, I suppose. But most people will just take the approach of the person I replied to. If ad-blocking takes off, we're going to come to a new content winter.

Re: Google Contributor: Buy an ad removal pass for the web

#90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Maybe if Google went with "Pay us $10 per month for us not to show you any AdSense anywhere on the web", this would be successful And more importantly, with the guarantee of "no tracking whatsoever" (rather than just not 'showing' ads). Then, some of my friends would start trusting Google again (and are already willing to pay for something like that).

"I don't trust you! If you let me pay for promise of not tracking me, I will trust you again!" I don't think trust depends on how much you pay somebody who you do not trust. But I may be wrong.

I understand your sarcasm. I personally use all of Google's services heavily, but I'll explain my friend's point of view which is not completely unreasonable IMO:

Eventually, you can't know if Google or any company is secretly doing something evil 'against' their own Terms of Services and Privacy Policy, so to be fair to Google we assume that it will stick to them at any given point of time. But, you never know when those privacy policies will change overnight, when the government will change the laws overnight forcing companies to give all the information they have, or when the company will be attacked leaking all data. Also, according to Google's privacy policy there are always some "trusted partners" to which they share the data - whose security measures no one knows anything about. So, the logic is a lot can be done if you have the data. But if you just don't collect it (and it's clearly written in the Privacy Policy), governments/hackers/future evil buyers of the company can't do anything.

Post reply on HN