Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Telegram's getting ads

gizmodo.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

1–10 of 97 posts

Re: Telegram's getting ads

#3

Post by bilal4hmed »

While Im not a fan of telegrams encryption, the title is a bit misleading. It makes it seem as if ALL of telegram is getting ads.

if you go to the founders post https://t.me/durov/142

It clearly says ads will be for the 1:many public community channels and not the private 1:1 and group chats. Other ways of funding will be premium services for businesses and premium stickers.

Sounds reasonable to me

Re: Telegram's getting ads

#4

Post by bilal4hmed »

fsflover wrote: post #2

This is why decentralization is the future. Any sufficiently popular walled garden will have such problem (I'm looking at you Signal). Consider using Matrix instead.

I like Matrix, but when it comes to ease of use and onboarding Signal is easier for the general audience.

Re: Telegram's getting ads

#5

Post by loceng »

fsflover wrote: post #2

This is why decentralization is the future. Any sufficiently popular walled garden will have such problem (I'm looking at you Signal). Consider using Matrix instead.

Arguably providing everyone the means to pay for what individuals need to live a healthy, thriving life, is what's necessary - so they can cover the costs of these services without the need for ads to cover those costs. The ad industrial complex was a way to fast track processes, however it doesn't account for the externalized costs of manipulative advertising on society - lower quality, addictive products-services having a higher profit margin and therefore a higher budget for marketing/advertising as part of sustaining the complex. Decentralization therefore isn't a necessity except as a failsafe against potential bad actors, however data and network portability is necessary law/policy to be in place to counter actions of bad actors who use this current lack of easy mobility as a network defense mechanism.

Re: Telegram's getting ads

#6

Post by dfxm12 »

loceng wrote: post #5
fsflover wrote: post #2

This is why decentralization is the future. Any sufficiently popular walled garden will have such problem (I'm looking at you Signal). Consider using Matrix instead.

Arguably providing everyone the means to pay for what individuals need to live a healthy, thriving life, is what's necessary - so they can cover the costs of these services without the need for ads to cover those costs. The ad industrial complex was a way to fast track processes, however it doesn't account for the externalized costs of manipulative advertising on society - lower quality, addictive products-services h…

so they can cover the costs of these services without the need for ads to cover those costs.

I don't think that once you pay for a service, ads and selling user data simply go away. In general, companies don't exist to just cover their costs, they exist to make as much money as they can. If they can make money by showing you ads or sell your data, they will.

Re: Telegram's getting ads

#8

Post by ____________g »

I don't understand how Telegram has managed to stay free for 8 (?) years until now. Was there ever a catch? Since the start it has continuously improved to become a feature-packed product that's easy to use, with a pleasant UI.

Re: Telegram's getting ads

#9

Post by bilal4hmed »

____________g wrote: post #8

I don't understand how Telegram has managed to stay free for 8 (?) years until now. Was there ever a catch? Since the start it has continuously improved to become a feature-packed product that's easy to use, with a pleasant UI.

The founder had been covering the costs

Re: Telegram's getting ads

#10

Post by loceng »

dfxm12 wrote: post #6
loceng wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Arguably providing everyone the means to pay for what individuals need to live a healthy, thriving life, is what's necessary - so they can cover the costs of these services without the need for ads to cover those costs. The ad industrial complex was a way to fast track processes, however it doesn't account for the externalized costs of manipulative advertising on society - lower quality, addictive products-services h…

so they can cover the costs of these services without the need for ads to cover those costs. I don't think that once you pay for a service, ads and selling user data simply go away. In general, companies don't exist to just cover their costs, they exist to make as much money as they can. If they can make money by showing you ads or sell your data, they will.

Yes, but if you're providing people enough to at least cover the costs of necessary services (perhaps even providing 10%+ above costs to allow budget for R&D or profit) then a competitor will come along who's against ads (for reasons: interruptive/intrusive, manipulative, etc) then there at least is a choice now possible - the ability to compete with ad-only funded options. Some people, maybe the majority of people, will be fine with using ad-only supported systems - exchanging their time, attention, and being manipulated - so then they have more of their UBI to spend elsewhere. The important point is the fluidity it allows within the system, to allow competitors to exist who don't need to depend on ads; and then you'll have the whole ad industrial complex + every other company that depends on influencing/manipulating people with ads to sustain their sales trying to counter how much UBI get so these systems can't be maintained without ads, keeping non-manipulative competition down at a disadvantage and unable to compete adequately.
Post reply on HN