571–580 of 611 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why do you need ads for that? Why doesn't your research for things that you buy not start with looking up the list of all prominent contenders in that niche?
Where is the list? And what if I don't know the category exists?
If you have a specific problem you're trying to solve, then you will find out about the relevant categories.
Stances like this probably feel good to write out, but they miss the reality that when running a media business, relying on one revenue stream is dangerous. That’s why newspapers had classified ads, even though they charged a nominal fee to subscribe. People won’t pay $5 a day to subscribe to a newspaper, but the ads subsidize enough of it to make it so that a paid subscription is accessible to more people. On the in…
Were the ads run on the web not built on a separate business that attempts to violate the reasonable sense of privacy the average person expects, and didn’t attempt to warp consumer’s expectations of privacy, I think there would be less objections.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nope!
Their ads make the American advertisers look like teetotalers. Some of my faves: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRLe826lyao
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why do you need ads for that? Why doesn't your research for things that you buy not start with looking up the list of all prominent contenders in that niche?
Where is the list? And what if I don't know the category exists?
This is one of those things where interests of the consumer are at odds with that of the business. Businesses need money, customers have money. Customers do not always want to pay the businesses directly. This issue is more obvious when it comes to news media. We don't have a good solution to pay $0.01 - $0.10 or whatever small denomination. The other question is would we even want to? I don’t think Freemium or whate…
I subscribe to YouTube Premium (from back when it was called YouTube Red). I pay a fixed amount each month, and that gets given to people who made videos I watch. Why can't we have more things like this?
However, I seldom read any news articles maybe 1-2 here and there only. In that case I wouldn’t want to pay for a susscriotion. I likely also don’t wanna pay like five bucks to read an article.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But it is not possible to use it without creating a Google account. I should not need to sign in to watch videos, especially when that makes all efforts at avoiding tracking null.
I get why you might not want to create a Google account, but how is it even possible to operate without one? I'm genuinely astonished by people who are able to get by in 2024 without having ever created an account on Google.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't want any content enough to tolerate ads.
Then don’t consume it. You have full control over that. We all do. What we don’t have is the right to assert a condescending “moral” stance that ignores the economic realities that producers must grapple with.
Is it that you are generally opposed to critical response? And if so, do you see the irony in you critically responding to another critical response?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> miss the reality that when running a media business, relying on one revenue stream is dangerous. Why would I, as a consumer, compromise on what I want to make some MBA's life easier? That almost sounds like corporate welfare. Businesses sign up to take risks the moment they're created. A news organization doesn't need to be in business. There is nothing unjust or morally wrong with letting a business shutdown becau…
That folks think it’s an MBA that benefits from building a sustainable media business and not the people who work there, who get paychecks and better resourcing, is one of the great misunderstandings of the journalism business and the reason why I pipe up in threads like these.
Because of things like this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Denver_Post#Newsroom_cuts_...
Which is only one of many. Just came to my mind because once Pulitzer Price winning, while now nothing special.
https://www.westword.com/ is more interesting, at least for local stuff, if one considers 4 to 5hrs drive in good weather, or a short hop through the air 'local' :)
Similar stuff with https://www.aspentimes.com/ which is now more or less generic drivel,
in the same template as much other stuff around there. (See News Neighbors down there, click and compare)
Some of those migrated to https://www.aspendailynews.com/ which isn't better that much, but still a little bit.
Maybe that's just because of the location, and the economic pressures of a former mininig village,
which changed into a fully gentrified resort village, milking masses of tourists for the 'unique experience'.
Which it still has, far away from the tourist traps, if one can afford it :)
There isn't that much to report, which would be public, or the locals being interested in.
There aren't that many anyways.
>you don’t get to double dip and also sell my data to your advertisers and earn more on the side. 1. Placing an Ad on the page has absolutely nothing to do with selling your data. Just like a magazine decide to place a print ad. 2. Ad can sometimes function as news. New Product launch, marketing notes. etc. 3. Even an internet targeting Ad, which the author is likely referring to, does not necessarily sell your data…
2. Only if your idea of news is the propaganda and corporate press releases pushed these days. I prefer my news to come from impartial sources, not those extracting enough profits that they can throw it on ads.
3. It may not sell the data directly to the advertise but it must by design be able to leak some information about you. And that's before getting to full on malware shipped with ads. It also doesn't matter who my data is leaked to, I don't want it collected in the first place.
4. If ads weren't profitable no one would run them. Your paying for them by being manipulated into doing or thinking what the advertiser wants. Thinking ads are free for the users is beyond naive.
5. Being able to choose not do do business with double dippers doens't make it not double dipping.
6. No, hiding the psychological manipulation more effectively does not make it any less wrong.
There is nothing to discuss. I do not give consent. You don't get to ignore that.