We’re dropping Google Ads

"Google pays a tiny amount each time an ad appears, and a somewhat larger amount if readers click on an ad. To understand exactly how the payment system works requires several PhDs, a four-digit IQ and stay-awake drugs."

That's enough for GroundUp to make these decision.

For what it's worth, some of us just never stopped putting cool and interesting content online, for free, without monetizing it with ads (except perhaps as a short-duration experiment in the early 2000s when this madness started taking off).

If I wanted to get paid to let someone shit all over and between that content/media, I'd be writing/designing very different content. ... unless maybe it was an art project to explicitly demonstrate the fragility of excellence (okay maybe that's a cool idea actually--this besides the point :p)

Me too, but not so much about the content ("ads is ads", I used to think), but about privacy and the relentless tracking that DoubleClick was doing. And oooh boy, did that omen ever come true.

Another thing was the moment when I realized the implications of having a giant Internet-wide ad-network implemented in the form of injected third-party javascript. I mean, at first it seemed real clever. This wasn't a big thing back then, just yet. Originally ads were just clickable image links with an affiliate code in the GET parameter and http-referer tracking (which already provides an advertiser way more info about their audience then a printed ad in a magazine would, so yes that is more than sufficient for advertisers who honestly want to advertise instead of spying on people).

It's a miracle that over the existence of AdSense, nobody ever managed to XSS the entire Internet. Even if that can be attributed to the AdSense team awareness of their unique position of responsibility and engineering quality control or something; We still dodged a bullet with that one, because it just so happens that it was the Google that came into control of the largest XSS vector in history. But having quality control and a culture of responsibility didn't cause becoming the largest and gaining control (it just means they got to keep it, because it hasn't gone horribly wrong--for which we are lucky). A while back I read a comment on HN arguing (though I'm not sure if they realized) that whether something is a "good product" depends more on how well it is marketed (and therefore finds its way to people that can use it) than it depends on the quality of the product. That's horrible, but like too many horrible things, also true in some sense. So it just so happened that the ad-network that was marketed best and became one of the largest and most successful, also happened to be one that was of sufficient quality to not break the Internet.

If you're doing something valuable, figure out a way to get paid for it. By and large the thing you get paid for is the thing people value.

> On a different note, Google itself is spoken of as Ad company till date. But look at what it has now, possibly a leadership position in self driving cars; Companies working on longevity; Android and several other Alphabet companies.

None of which is profitable. They're an ad company with PR.