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…
Google Contributor: Buy an ad removal pass for the web
81–90 of 269 posts
Re: Google Contributor: Buy an ad removal pass for the web
#82Earlier 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.
Re: Google Contributor: Buy an ad removal pass for the web
#83Whether 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.
Re: Google Contributor: Buy an ad removal pass for the web
#84Re: Google Contributor: Buy an ad removal pass for the web
#85Maybe 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-...
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
#86I 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.
Re: Google Contributor: Buy an ad removal pass for the web
#87I like how Google doesn't remove ads from it's own sites
Re: Google Contributor: Buy an ad removal pass for the web
#88I 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.
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
#89Earlier 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.
Re: Google Contributor: Buy an ad removal pass for the web
#90Earlier 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.
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.