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

Google Contributor

google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 201 posts

Re: Google Contributor

#141

Post by lkbm »

fairblocker wrote: post #110
dikaiosune wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there's something to be said for an ad-free content "subscription" to the whole internet. I block all ads right now but I would still get the warm and fuzzies if I knew that I was free of ads and I was still paying a little bit to the people who create content online.

So... the product I just launched is identical to what you described. An ad blocker with bundled contributions, check it out if you want: fairblocker.com

Interesting. So the difference between Fairblocker and Google Contributor is that Google allows sites to opt-in to blocking with payment, whereas Fairblocker blocks regardless and allows them to opt-in to getting paid.

Pragmatically, it may make sense as an individual website operator to buy into Fairblocker, since adblocking is going to happen anyway, but I can definitely see not wanting to legitimize this system ("I'm blocking your ads whether you like it or not--want some money in compensation?"), whereas GC doesn't have that issue. (But it also doesn't block non-participating ads, so as a user, I'd want an additional adblocker, so may as well just use Fairblocker.)

I dunno how I feel about "we hold your money in escrow until you claim it", since you will literally owe this money to millions of websites and very few will ever claim it, but it's better than "we distribute the money just amongst those that have signed up".

I hope Fairblocker gets big among those who aren't satisfied with blocking ads just on GC participants websites. Definitely seems like a really good idea, and it needs to reach a good scale to be worth the time for website owners to sign up. I may give it a try (as a user).

Re: Google Contributor

#142

Post by hackuser »

Google is solving the wrong problem, IMO. I don't mind seeing ads; I care that my actions are tracked and my privacy/confidentiality is violated. I think most people who object to the advertising-based Internet do it for the same reason -- ads are annoying, but privacy is a serious problem.

I looked for a privacy policy or something that addresses what is tracked, but all I see are links to Google's universal privacy policy.

Re: Google Contributor

#143

Post by pekk »

smtddr wrote: post #131
jfoster wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. This idea only needs to be moderately successful for a standalone company to stick with it. It needs to be hugely successful for Google to remain committed to it. I'd go as far as saying Google are negligent (or malicious) for trying it. They might kill any startup doing the same thing, and then they will inevitably shut this down.

Well to be fair, it does say "experiment". I read that as "We can terminate this thing at anytime and you should expect as much"

Which makes it just like Wave, App Engine, etc. until it's proven - early adopters take the risk

Re: Google Contributor

#145

Post by fenomas »

egypturnash wrote: post #60

A fraction of $3/mo? From a company that abandons projects left and right? I'll stick to Patreon, thanks. I'm making about $800 on a productive month now despite there being a pretty small audience for comics about a lesbian robot with PKD problems. I set "no ads for anyone" as my goal for like $50/p, which was still making far more than I ever did from ad impressions. Most people only contribute a buck or so a page…

I could be missing something but this seems orthogonal to Patreon. Patreon is great specifically for things that aren't meant to generate lots of pageviews, and thus could never get by with ads.

This seems more like a "like ads but better" thing. Google appears to be saying, "Until now, you paid the advertiser by buying their products, they paid us, and we paid the websites. Let's keep doing that, except without the advertiser." Which is obviously great for Google, though I'm not sure how much it benefits anyone else.

Re: Google Contributor

#146

Post by jfoster »

libraryatnight wrote: post #139

This might explain why imgur suddenly decided to make all accounts equal and refund my subscription fee. As others have expressed, Google's tendency to abandon things means I don't take this very seriously and would rather see sites that want to use this model go with another company that's committed to the idea as a business.

It's not necessarily Google's fault that they will not treat this seriously enough. They've simply been too successful when it comes to advertising. I do think they should leave this sort of thing to other companies if they feel any sense of social responsibility, though.

Re: Google Contributor

#148

Post by smtddr »

jfoster wrote: post #138
smtddr wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well to be fair, it does say "experiment". I read that as "We can terminate this thing at anytime and you should expect as much"

Sure, but what effect does that "experiment" have on the other companies that are dedicated to the idea? It doesn't matter what Google calls it. Google could crush those companies and still eventually consider this opportunity too small to be worth their while.

Hmm, then what can Google experiment with that doesn't carry the risk of harming a preexisting smaller company? I guess only things like self-driving cars that nobody else is doing?

Re: Google Contributor

#149

Post by jonnat »

I'm truly trying and failing not to see this as an opportunity to pay $3/mo to give Google the right to track and record all my web visits.

I'm fully aware that with the ad-based model, multiple companies are tracking my page views as well, including largely Google's DoubleClick, but there are two important distinctions. Paradoxically I feel safer being tracked by an entire ecosystem rather than a single company. And my lack of explicit consent while simply visiting sites limits what they can do with my data - something tells me that this consent will be in the ToS of this product.

Post reply on HN