Google Contributor: Buy an ad removal pass for the web(contributor.google.com)
contributor.google.com
Google Contributor: Buy an ad removal pass for the web
https://contributor.google.com/v/marketing
268 comments
> Any payments to avoid ads served by these companies would require compensating all of these companies
I think you misunderstood how this iteration of Contributor would work; the publisher integrates Google's contributor code in such a way that if you pay them, they don't show you any ads, no need to worry about the ad ecosystem.
> People want to maintain their privacy
I will start believing this when people start acting like it rather than just saying it. I would be surprised if the group of people who care enough about their privacy to do anything about it is above 1% of internet users in the US.
> It's easy to envision a system utilizing a crypto currency and a digital wallet held by your browser
Brave is really killing it with their user numbers, right?
I think you misunderstood how this iteration of Contributor would work; the publisher integrates Google's contributor code in such a way that if you pay them, they don't show you any ads, no need to worry about the ad ecosystem.
> People want to maintain their privacy
I will start believing this when people start acting like it rather than just saying it. I would be surprised if the group of people who care enough about their privacy to do anything about it is above 1% of internet users in the US.
> It's easy to envision a system utilizing a crypto currency and a digital wallet held by your browser
Brave is really killing it with their user numbers, right?
> I think you misunderstood how this iteration of Contributor would work
No, I understand perfectly well how it works. If you pay Google, then Google doesn't show you ads and it gives the Content Creator a cut.
Google is part of the Ad ecosystem. Contributor not only excludes other Ad providers from participating, it also requires the Content Creator to sign up to Google's Ad ecosystem. And Google is still gathering metadata about you.
So who benefits? Google has compelled Content Creators to join it's Ad Network, Google has compelled you to disable your Ad Blocker under the guise of compensating Content Creators, Google gets paid whether it serves an ad or not, and Google gets to track you in ways it couldn't with your Ad Blocker up.
You know god damn well this system won't work with uBlock or any other 3rd Party Ad Blocker. I'm sure it will work just fine with whatever Google Ships in Chrome though.
No, I understand perfectly well how it works. If you pay Google, then Google doesn't show you ads and it gives the Content Creator a cut.
Google is part of the Ad ecosystem. Contributor not only excludes other Ad providers from participating, it also requires the Content Creator to sign up to Google's Ad ecosystem. And Google is still gathering metadata about you.
So who benefits? Google has compelled Content Creators to join it's Ad Network, Google has compelled you to disable your Ad Blocker under the guise of compensating Content Creators, Google gets paid whether it serves an ad or not, and Google gets to track you in ways it couldn't with your Ad Blocker up.
You know god damn well this system won't work with uBlock or any other 3rd Party Ad Blocker. I'm sure it will work just fine with whatever Google Ships in Chrome though.
Which, architecturally, is a reasonable objection. But Google runs one of the largest ad networks in the world, so even if a given content creator doesn't run Google's ads, they've probably considered it, and have definitely heard of them. Unless you're deeply involved with online advertising, clicks, impressions, CTR, CPI, cost-per-action, cost-per-click are just noise; content creators want to create content, and be compensated for it.
It's a different market to chase money from people that actually read their content instead of companies who want to sell their products, and outside of a few large paywalled sites like Bloomberg or WSJ, many attempts to charge for content online have failed - but the conundrum is they don't fail for lack of readers, just lack of readers willing to pay.
As far as privacy issues, compared to 2 billion active chrome installs[1], the 611 million people that use ad-blockers[2] is only 30%, assuming they're all using Chrome (which I doubt), and even then, privacy tracking blocklists aren't turned on by default, so the percentage of Internet users that know about the privacy aspect, and care deeply enough about it to do something, is surely smaller still.
Google, then, is one of few parties with enough clout to create such a system and possibly prevail. Content creators have already explored a relationship with Google, many end-users already have logins for Gmail, and many have already paid Google directly in some fashion (Google Play store on Android).
[1] https://techcrunch.com/2016/11/10/google-says-there-are-now-... [2] https://pagefair.com/blog/2017/adblockreport/
It's a different market to chase money from people that actually read their content instead of companies who want to sell their products, and outside of a few large paywalled sites like Bloomberg or WSJ, many attempts to charge for content online have failed - but the conundrum is they don't fail for lack of readers, just lack of readers willing to pay.
As far as privacy issues, compared to 2 billion active chrome installs[1], the 611 million people that use ad-blockers[2] is only 30%, assuming they're all using Chrome (which I doubt), and even then, privacy tracking blocklists aren't turned on by default, so the percentage of Internet users that know about the privacy aspect, and care deeply enough about it to do something, is surely smaller still.
Google, then, is one of few parties with enough clout to create such a system and possibly prevail. Content creators have already explored a relationship with Google, many end-users already have logins for Gmail, and many have already paid Google directly in some fashion (Google Play store on Android).
[1] https://techcrunch.com/2016/11/10/google-says-there-are-now-... [2] https://pagefair.com/blog/2017/adblockreport/
> Content Creator to sign up to Google's Ad ecosystem
I don't think there has been any indication of this one way or another, and I'd be sort of surprised if this is the tack they're taking.
We'll see how it turns out, but it doesn't sound (to me) like they are compelling companies to show Google ads, merely providing the paywall technology.
> You know god damn well this system won't work with uBlock or any other 3rd Party Ad Blocker.
I think the entire point is to get people using uBlock etc to either turn it off or to pay, so I have no idea where you're getting this idea from.
I don't think there has been any indication of this one way or another, and I'd be sort of surprised if this is the tack they're taking.
We'll see how it turns out, but it doesn't sound (to me) like they are compelling companies to show Google ads, merely providing the paywall technology.
> You know god damn well this system won't work with uBlock or any other 3rd Party Ad Blocker.
I think the entire point is to get people using uBlock etc to either turn it off or to pay, so I have no idea where you're getting this idea from.
> I think the entire point is to get people using uBlock etc to either turn it off or to pay,
It is not an either or situation. Google wants to track you and get paid for doing so. They don't care if the money comes from you or advertisers. They do however care if they can't track you.
A contribution system could be setup completely independent of the ad serving system. That however has not been the case. With all iterations of Contributor before this, if you had Ad Blocker enabled then Contributor did not work at all.
It is not an either or situation. Google wants to track you and get paid for doing so. They don't care if the money comes from you or advertisers. They do however care if they can't track you.
A contribution system could be setup completely independent of the ad serving system. That however has not been the case. With all iterations of Contributor before this, if you had Ad Blocker enabled then Contributor did not work at all.
> With all iterations of Contributor before this, if you had Ad Blocker enabled then Contributor did not work at all.
"This time is different", or at least I think this time it will be different, since the whole point is to reach users who have ad blockers enabled, I guess we'll see how it goes.
"This time is different", or at least I think this time it will be different, since the whole point is to reach users who have ad blockers enabled, I guess we'll see how it goes.
>> People want to maintain their privacy
> I will start believing this when people start acting like it rather than just saying it. I would be surprised if the group of people who care enough about their privacy to do anything about it is above 1% of internet users in the US.
That's like saying, "I will start believing people don't want viruses when they stop opening attachments, start carefully examining every URL before clicking on it, and verify MD5 checksums before installing any downloads.
We don't blame the spread of computer viruses on untechnical users. The creators of operating systems and browsers have the vantage point and the expertise, and are in the best position to do the right thing. But of course profits always come first. The same goes with privacy.
> I will start believing this when people start acting like it rather than just saying it. I would be surprised if the group of people who care enough about their privacy to do anything about it is above 1% of internet users in the US.
That's like saying, "I will start believing people don't want viruses when they stop opening attachments, start carefully examining every URL before clicking on it, and verify MD5 checksums before installing any downloads.
We don't blame the spread of computer viruses on untechnical users. The creators of operating systems and browsers have the vantage point and the expertise, and are in the best position to do the right thing. But of course profits always come first. The same goes with privacy.
Thank you for saying this. I sometimes feel like I'm taking crazy pills when people bring up arguments about how users don't care about privacy, yet when polled, polls tend to show that they care very much about it but are just helpless to do anything about it. [1]
[1] http://boingboing.net/2015/06/08/internet-users-care-about-t...
[1] http://boingboing.net/2015/06/08/internet-users-care-about-t...
I guess I should restate my comments to be clearer: I don't think people are willing to sacrifice anything when it comes to privacy, specifically I do not think consumers will pay money to avoid tracking.
The study you linked to asked people "whether they would take discounts in exchange for allowing their supermarket to collect information about their grocery purchases" and found 43% of people said yes, but I believe that the conclusion you would draw if you asked people "would they pay more to stop their supermarket from collecting information about their grocery purchases", you would get different data.
In the same way that people dislike price discrimination more when it is framed as raising prices on some people rather than giving some people discounts.
And I'm sure this behavior will change further when you actually ask people for money and not just whether they would hypothetically pay money.
The study you linked to asked people "whether they would take discounts in exchange for allowing their supermarket to collect information about their grocery purchases" and found 43% of people said yes, but I believe that the conclusion you would draw if you asked people "would they pay more to stop their supermarket from collecting information about their grocery purchases", you would get different data.
In the same way that people dislike price discrimination more when it is framed as raising prices on some people rather than giving some people discounts.
And I'm sure this behavior will change further when you actually ask people for money and not just whether they would hypothetically pay money.
Brave isn't fully launched yet. They are still working on making extensions work via API compatibility. Once they nail extensions, I and a ton of others will switch from Chrome.
More accurately a subset of super-nerds who care about extensions and privacy will switch from Chrome.
For regular people, if Brave somehow started eating meaningful chunks of Google's market share they'd just integrate contributor into Chrome and get roughly the same effect.
For regular people, if Brave somehow started eating meaningful chunks of Google's market share they'd just integrate contributor into Chrome and get roughly the same effect.
Not to mention Brave is written in Electron/JS so it'll perform worse than Chrome does.
Yeah I gave up on Brave and switched to Opera, it feels about as snappy as chrome to me.
The only way the privacy issue will be solved is through legislation (or regulation, were the FCC to take a crack at it). Otherwise you're just fighting a highly incentivized system that is already in place and profitable. I can't imagine Google or Facebook sitting idly by and letting some change come about that might very well invalidate their entire business models, so it would take a real large shift in public opinion to get something that wasn't watered down.
I'm of the opinion that the best we could hope for is strong silo protections and the ability to request deletion of our gathered personal information for individual companies, and even that's a stretch. Also, even if we got that, good luck enforcing it on remote entities.
I'm of the opinion that the best we could hope for is strong silo protections and the ability to request deletion of our gathered personal information for individual companies, and even that's a stretch. Also, even if we got that, good luck enforcing it on remote entities.
I think the whole "fill up a digital wallet with cryptocurrency" thing is what Brave is (was?) attempting but without much success. I do think it's the future, they just took the wrong approach (Replacing others' ads with your own IS going to create bad blood no matter how you spin it) and were too early for it.
The trouble with Brave's approach is that it removes the user's choice of browsers.
Not really a big issue but ultimately all the browsers will probably follow this approach. Once you taste speed it is hard to go back.
I can only assume this forces you to use Chrome, so it has the same issue.
I don't think it does. Previous versions of Contributor worked in all browsers. It simply doesn't draw an ad for users that. Not really something you need a special browser for :)
The issue is lessened by the fact that everyone* already uses chrome.
*Most relevant demographics
*Most relevant demographics
You don't have to fill up a digital wallet with cryptocurrency with Brave, you can still block ads without doing that.
> the end result predictably would be movie studio accounting that leaves the content provider with nothing
This always saddens and upsets me that "movie studio accounting" even exists in the first place. I would be loathe to support a model that could devolve to this.
This always saddens and upsets me that "movie studio accounting" even exists in the first place. I would be loathe to support a model that could devolve to this.
The solution is Xanadu: get the transaction costs low enough that people can be automatically charged for the content they read.
The acceptance of half-assed worse-is-better partial solutions has doomed us all to scammy, spammy "Links from Around the Web" until these issues arw resolved.
The acceptance of half-assed worse-is-better partial solutions has doomed us all to scammy, spammy "Links from Around the Web" until these issues arw resolved.
Yes to everything and:
uBlock is gonna be just as easy to install as hassling with setting up a contributor account.
uBlock is gonna be just as easy to install as hassling with setting up a contributor account.
When Google adds ad-blocking to Chrome, it'll be interesting to see what happens to current solutions.
[deleted]
> It's easy to envision a system utilizing a crypto currency and a digital wallet held by your browser that you fill occasionally and that prompts you to pay
Check out: https://satoshipay.io/
Check out: https://satoshipay.io/
That will fail on the first day. The likes of WSJ are not going to take that currency and people will not bother with 'digital wallets'.
Adaptation is the key to success. Something like that would be counterproductive.
Adaptation is the key to success. Something like that would be counterproductive.
Very perceptive, and extra points for the vivid but notably obscure rat King reference
I came here to say "bwahahahaha" but this is so much better. Thanks.
Whether 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 value/quality of the content.
I wish it weren't google (who also already owns advertising), but someone large is the only one who can make it happen.
A model like this is necessary to support quality content online.
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 value/quality of the content.
I wish it weren't google (who also already owns advertising), but someone large is the only one who can make it happen.
A model like this is necessary to support quality content online.
>A model like this is necessary to support quality content online.
It's totally not. People essentially enjoy creating and sharing, and love putting up quality content about things they truly give a shit about.
The internet was built on people writing massive forums posts about completely stripping down Kawasaki motorbike engines, and hosting their own websites where they ramble about conditional probability. Wikipedia was written by unpaid but enthusiastic curators, and no one got paid for uploading popular Youtube videos until long after it was already a staple of the internet.
I totally and utterly refute your statement. The world came to the internet for the content that people made for free, because it was the best. It's still the best. After all, you're here reading the comments on hacker news, which we are all freely contributing too with no expectation of compensation.
Quality online content will not vanish if online advertising fails, because quality online content is posted by people who first and foremost /want to post content/. It'll move to different kinds of websites depending on how people want to access content at the time, but it will still be here, just as it always has been. What will vanish is all the mediocre spacefilling bullshit. The stuff so dull you _must_ pay someone to write it because no one would do it for fun or kudos.
It's totally not. People essentially enjoy creating and sharing, and love putting up quality content about things they truly give a shit about.
The internet was built on people writing massive forums posts about completely stripping down Kawasaki motorbike engines, and hosting their own websites where they ramble about conditional probability. Wikipedia was written by unpaid but enthusiastic curators, and no one got paid for uploading popular Youtube videos until long after it was already a staple of the internet.
I totally and utterly refute your statement. The world came to the internet for the content that people made for free, because it was the best. It's still the best. After all, you're here reading the comments on hacker news, which we are all freely contributing too with no expectation of compensation.
Quality online content will not vanish if online advertising fails, because quality online content is posted by people who first and foremost /want to post content/. It'll move to different kinds of websites depending on how people want to access content at the time, but it will still be here, just as it always has been. What will vanish is all the mediocre spacefilling bullshit. The stuff so dull you _must_ pay someone to write it because no one would do it for fun or kudos.
Not all quality content can be produced in spare time as a labour of love. High quality journalism, for example.
I seriously doubt ads could support production of that content either.
They're not - and that's one of the big problems facing our civic society. It's just not economically possible to write level-headed content at any real scale.
> The internet was built on people writing massive forums posts about completely stripping down Kawasaki motorbike engines...
Yes the internet came about because of academics and hobbyists playing around in their spare time. We as people who often came up during that time have a habit of over-weighting that. The internet is not a side project anymore. The internet is the future of every industry - and absolutely the future of every content creation industry.
You can't expect every industry to be reduced to what can be produced by hobbyists working for free in their spare time.
Yes the internet came about because of academics and hobbyists playing around in their spare time. We as people who often came up during that time have a habit of over-weighting that. The internet is not a side project anymore. The internet is the future of every industry - and absolutely the future of every content creation industry.
You can't expect every industry to be reduced to what can be produced by hobbyists working for free in their spare time.
>You can't expect every industry to be reduced to what can be produced by hobbyists working for free in their spare time.
You're implying that it's in some fashion my job to care about those industries.
I don't care what happens to buzzfeed, and I don't care what happens to the wallstreet journal. /My life/ and /my needs/ and met regardless of their existence, so I really don't give a shit whether they are sustainable or not.
You're implying that it's in some fashion my job to care about those industries.
I don't care what happens to buzzfeed, and I don't care what happens to the wallstreet journal. /My life/ and /my needs/ and met regardless of their existence, so I really don't give a shit whether they are sustainable or not.
Do you care what happens to your newspaper? Because it's not the Buzzfeeds of the world who are suffering because people like you feel entitled to free content. It's the publishers who can actually hold our institutions and leaders to account.
>Do you care what happens to your newspaper?
Not really, they're owned by long serving members of one of the major parties. Their impartiality is directly proportional to the time until the next Icelandic election.
Not really, they're owned by long serving members of one of the major parties. Their impartiality is directly proportional to the time until the next Icelandic election.
>People essentially enjoy creating and sharing, and love putting up quality content about things they truly give a shit about.
I don't believe that applies to even a tiny fraction of people. I work with a LOT of world-class scientists (biotech). I can tell you outright that after they leave work, the LAST thing they want to do is to spend hours updating Wikipedia or arguing in forum posts about scientific minutia. (Yes, it might be different in pure academia, where people love to publish, but even there, they're already getting compensated)
So even if we take your argument ast face value, people who enjoy sharing _ALSO_ enjoy getting paid. To take a relevant example, the primary reason Linux didn't fail (like most hobby projects do) was because companies pumped in hundreds of millions of dollars to pay people to actually write code. You want to write a AAA game, a web browser, a compiler, an OS or any other software tool that has hundreds of millions of lines of code and can compete with the leading products, while not spending a dime? Good luck and god speed is what I'd say. So while in principle, I might agree with your proposition that one man MAY give away the fruits of their labor, and that those fruits might be very very delicious, the world is running out of things people can do in their spare time for free that is also worth looking at. Please note that I'm not talking about hacking out a tiny tool over the weekend. I'm talking about sustained efforts to produce something of value.
> The world came to the internet for the content that people made for free, because it was the best.
You need to provide a _LOT_ of evidence if you want people to believe such an outlandish claim.
I don't believe that applies to even a tiny fraction of people. I work with a LOT of world-class scientists (biotech). I can tell you outright that after they leave work, the LAST thing they want to do is to spend hours updating Wikipedia or arguing in forum posts about scientific minutia. (Yes, it might be different in pure academia, where people love to publish, but even there, they're already getting compensated)
So even if we take your argument ast face value, people who enjoy sharing _ALSO_ enjoy getting paid. To take a relevant example, the primary reason Linux didn't fail (like most hobby projects do) was because companies pumped in hundreds of millions of dollars to pay people to actually write code. You want to write a AAA game, a web browser, a compiler, an OS or any other software tool that has hundreds of millions of lines of code and can compete with the leading products, while not spending a dime? Good luck and god speed is what I'd say. So while in principle, I might agree with your proposition that one man MAY give away the fruits of their labor, and that those fruits might be very very delicious, the world is running out of things people can do in their spare time for free that is also worth looking at. Please note that I'm not talking about hacking out a tiny tool over the weekend. I'm talking about sustained efforts to produce something of value.
> The world came to the internet for the content that people made for free, because it was the best.
You need to provide a _LOT_ of evidence if you want people to believe such an outlandish claim.
> The internet was built on people writing massive forums posts about completely stripping down Kawasaki motorbike engines
You're skipping the birth of the internet and are talking about the teenage years. I was alive and on the internet in the very early 90s. Academics and Hobbyists created the barebones of the internet, sure, sorta. But the internet didn't explode in popularity until people started making money off it. That's when the 90s internet bubble started to form. Even before the internet, services like Prodigy, Compuserve and AOL were here, quite literally being the internet. There were local BBSs and then there were big, national BBSs like Prodigy and Compuserve. They were little internets onto themselves, and produced content themselves. At the time, they were more popular than the web itself, because the content today simply didn't exist like it did back then. No google, No wikipedia, forums were still in their infancy, etc.
> I totally and utterly refute your statement. The world came to the internet for the content that people made for free
Wrong. You most certainly weren't on the internet back then if you're going to stand behind that statement because it's 100% false. It's simply too complex for that statement to hold true. Everything from internet speeds to cheap computers played a much larger part -- the internet sucked back in the mid 90s because it took 3 minutes to load up a simple (non animated) gif file. Videos? Hah! It would take you a week to download a 15 minute clip. Due to these issues, people got fed up or were impatient and it delayed adoption.
> Quality online content will not vanish if online advertising fails, because quality online content is posted by people who first and foremost /want to post content/.
That's great in some naive ideological fantasy, but it ignores a little something called human nature, more specifically, greed and/or the need to put food on the table. People will want to make money off their work and people will create content for money. Just because some people will create content for free doesn't mean they constitute a majority, or even a minority.
You're skipping the birth of the internet and are talking about the teenage years. I was alive and on the internet in the very early 90s. Academics and Hobbyists created the barebones of the internet, sure, sorta. But the internet didn't explode in popularity until people started making money off it. That's when the 90s internet bubble started to form. Even before the internet, services like Prodigy, Compuserve and AOL were here, quite literally being the internet. There were local BBSs and then there were big, national BBSs like Prodigy and Compuserve. They were little internets onto themselves, and produced content themselves. At the time, they were more popular than the web itself, because the content today simply didn't exist like it did back then. No google, No wikipedia, forums were still in their infancy, etc.
> I totally and utterly refute your statement. The world came to the internet for the content that people made for free
Wrong. You most certainly weren't on the internet back then if you're going to stand behind that statement because it's 100% false. It's simply too complex for that statement to hold true. Everything from internet speeds to cheap computers played a much larger part -- the internet sucked back in the mid 90s because it took 3 minutes to load up a simple (non animated) gif file. Videos? Hah! It would take you a week to download a 15 minute clip. Due to these issues, people got fed up or were impatient and it delayed adoption.
> Quality online content will not vanish if online advertising fails, because quality online content is posted by people who first and foremost /want to post content/.
That's great in some naive ideological fantasy, but it ignores a little something called human nature, more specifically, greed and/or the need to put food on the table. People will want to make money off their work and people will create content for money. Just because some people will create content for free doesn't mean they constitute a majority, or even a minority.
> Wrong. You most certainly weren't on the internet back then if you're going to stand behind that statement because it's 100% false.
I was on the Internet back them and I certainly came for the freely published content... So it's not 100% false.
I was on the Internet back them and I certainly came for the freely published content... So it's not 100% false.
"It's totally not. People essentially enjoy creating and sharing, and love putting up quality content about things they truly give a shit about."
As someone who participated in, and helped build, this early vision of the Internet, I am very, very sympathetic to (and enthusiastic about) your statement and vision.
However, you can't look at something amazing like this:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/05/26/us/turkey-pro...
... and think that this, or some useful version of this, would come out of the amateur, self-published, enthusiast ether.
I am floored by what they've done here and how they have used static text and interactivity and video motion to present a story. This is amazing work and someone has to pay the bills for this.
I don't know how that happens but I know it's not happening for free.
As someone who participated in, and helped build, this early vision of the Internet, I am very, very sympathetic to (and enthusiastic about) your statement and vision.
However, you can't look at something amazing like this:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/05/26/us/turkey-pro...
... and think that this, or some useful version of this, would come out of the amateur, self-published, enthusiast ether.
I am floored by what they've done here and how they have used static text and interactivity and video motion to present a story. This is amazing work and someone has to pay the bills for this.
I don't know how that happens but I know it's not happening for free.
[deleted]
So who pays for the servers?
Enthusiastic individuals. I personally have content which I host on Digital Ocean droplets and which do not generate any kind of revenue for me.
And who pays for the investigative reports?
Who pays for the academics who spend their lifetimes researching the field we're reading about?
Who pays salaries so the best people can make a living doing what they're truly great at?
Who makes enough money to get big and old enough to gain a reputation? Without which, the news is a hail of unsubstantiated bulletins from semianonymous writers, a wilderness of mirrors and fake news amped up to eleven?
Believing that we can make content totally free is utopian. You might as well ask why to bother paying software engineers large salaries when open source software exists.
In a world where content is free, all that happens is that newspapers become the organs of plutocrats and political groups. If you want to imagine how the internet looks when content is totally free, imagine a Facebook news feed written by the Koch brothers.
Who pays for the academics who spend their lifetimes researching the field we're reading about?
Who pays salaries so the best people can make a living doing what they're truly great at?
Who makes enough money to get big and old enough to gain a reputation? Without which, the news is a hail of unsubstantiated bulletins from semianonymous writers, a wilderness of mirrors and fake news amped up to eleven?
Believing that we can make content totally free is utopian. You might as well ask why to bother paying software engineers large salaries when open source software exists.
In a world where content is free, all that happens is that newspapers become the organs of plutocrats and political groups. If you want to imagine how the internet looks when content is totally free, imagine a Facebook news feed written by the Koch brothers.
Oh, come on man, the academics should would for kudos. /s
Academics are paid with tax dollars.
Assuming this is serious: actually, no. Academics are ultimately paid by a mix of university tuition fees (paid by students) and research grants (which may come from tax-funded entities, but more generally come from charities and philanthropic orgs).
We don't live in the same country FYI.
I'm sure Putin will be very happy to subsidize lots of reporting for Americans coming from Russia Today! There all the content you want! It might not be good for our democracy, but that may not have been included in the problem statement. :-)
Honestly, it's not the Russian propagandists I'm worried about. It's the American ones.
But then it's not free. It's just that somebody else is paying for it. And that quickly becomes hard, when your readership grows. Especially if you are just starting out. Even Wikipedia was at first sponsored by a private, for-profit organisation.
Same people who currently pay for Bittorrent's servers, I imagine.
I think you're conflating the Web and the commercial portion of the Web.
It's pretty clear that he's talking about the display ad supported portion of the web.
And it has to come from the ad networks, because the infrastructure to make this work is already there - hopefully the ultimate form of this wouldn't require site admins to really do anything special, other than twiddling a few settings in their Google advertising accounts.
The real trouble being the more people who use that kind of thing, the more the value of adverts goes down...
The real trouble being the more people who use that kind of thing, the more the value of adverts goes down...
> * And it has to come from the ad networks, because the infrastructure to make this work is already there*
That really chaps my ass. These are the people keep shitting in the well, then installed a pipe to inject feces directly into the well and the groundwater - and you're telling us that the only way to deliver disinfectant and filtration systems is through that pipe, and we might as well keep using their system?
> The real trouble being the more people who use that kind of thing, the more the value of adverts goes down...
That does become a problem if Google is the only game in town, and you're inexplicably banned from their platform, which does tend to happen.
That really chaps my ass. These are the people keep shitting in the well, then installed a pipe to inject feces directly into the well and the groundwater - and you're telling us that the only way to deliver disinfectant and filtration systems is through that pipe, and we might as well keep using their system?
> The real trouble being the more people who use that kind of thing, the more the value of adverts goes down...
That does become a problem if Google is the only game in town, and you're inexplicably banned from their platform, which does tend to happen.
> And it has to come from the ad networks
That is a truth. You need to already have the infra to make this change. I think it'd be too much to both successfully grow a business and try to change browsing behavior at once.
> ...The more people who use that kind of thing, the more the value of adverts goes down...
Not necessarily a bad thing. If the value of adverts drops, and this is a well known alternative it provides even more incentive to move to model where there is still money to be made. Not to mention there probably is a bit of "recapture". Of people who ran ad-blockers for the experience (ie zero-revenue providers) who are willing to pay for content. Similar to people who torrented, but instead became Netflix/Hulu subscribers when it became an option.
That is a truth. You need to already have the infra to make this change. I think it'd be too much to both successfully grow a business and try to change browsing behavior at once.
> ...The more people who use that kind of thing, the more the value of adverts goes down...
Not necessarily a bad thing. If the value of adverts drops, and this is a well known alternative it provides even more incentive to move to model where there is still money to be made. Not to mention there probably is a bit of "recapture". Of people who ran ad-blockers for the experience (ie zero-revenue providers) who are willing to pay for content. Similar to people who torrented, but instead became Netflix/Hulu subscribers when it became an option.
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.
What you're describing is exactly the problem. The high quality report has to hope to survive on secondary effects (which don't work), unlike the junk-food reporting whose cost is paid for by the single viewing.
This is what every online newspaper has been saying for over a decade as they saw this problem approaching and didn't have a way to solve it. You can't survive this way in the extremely efficient web.
Either top quality content needs to be able to pay for itself (ie charge more), or you're left with only two successful business models: make junk-food content, or off load your content creation to people willing to do it essentially for free as a hobby.
Neither of those are good destinations for the web. They work in niches, but not across the board. Ex. I don't want my newspaper to consist of only volunteer journalists doing a bit here and there in their spare time.
This is what every online newspaper has been saying for over a decade as they saw this problem approaching and didn't have a way to solve it. You can't survive this way in the extremely efficient web.
Either top quality content needs to be able to pay for itself (ie charge more), or you're left with only two successful business models: make junk-food content, or off load your content creation to people willing to do it essentially for free as a hobby.
Neither of those are good destinations for the web. They work in niches, but not across the board. Ex. I don't want my newspaper to consist of only volunteer journalists doing a bit here and there in their spare time.
Market segmentation also routinely leads some advertisers to target the kind of people who prefer high quality reporting. Economist vs Daily Mail, as an analogy.
[deleted]
There's something I'm working on that's essentially a paypal button, but acts as a little widget on the site.
I'm still in the testing phases of it, but a lot of people that I've talked to have said "Yes, I'd pay $1-3 to a site that I visit regularly if it didn't have ads"
https://www.trussapp.com/ for the curious (it's still just a hair away from being a beta product, so keep that in mind)
I'm still in the testing phases of it, but a lot of people that I've talked to have said "Yes, I'd pay $1-3 to a site that I visit regularly if it didn't have ads"
https://www.trussapp.com/ for the curious (it's still just a hair away from being a beta product, so keep that in mind)
Brave Software
+100
I was a Google Contributor user/paying subscriber for quite a while. It works to some degree. But Brave is superior and is the best thing to happen to the web since ads.
I was a Google Contributor user/paying subscriber for quite a while. It works to some degree. But Brave is superior and is the best thing to happen to the web since ads.
> is the best thing to happen to the web since ads.
Ads are the worst thing that happened to the web.
Ads are the worst thing that happened to the web.
I'm also a fan of what Brave is doing.
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. 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-...
[0] http://www.businessinsider.de/android-malware-spreads-using-...
Google is the one ad network I'd expect to at least make an effort to scan for and filter malware-infested ads, for one reason: They're a household name and they have other products that actual consumers use.
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.
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.
>Google is the one ad network I'd expect to at least make an effort to scan for and filter malware-infested ads, for one reason: They're a household name and they have other products that actual consumers use.
They have already served up malware from ads: https://www.theverge.com/2014/9/19/6537511/google-ad-network...
They have already served up malware from ads: https://www.theverge.com/2014/9/19/6537511/google-ad-network...
Yes, I acknowledged that further down.
Huh? Do participating sites need to pay to be included? How is this protection money?
This is protection money from the user's POV. Protection against malware delivered to user through ads. Particular site that displays the ads is utterly irrelevant here.
My comment, as TeMPOraL points out, was looking at it from the user's perspective and it was a little tongue in cheek. However, google certainly is aware that its AdSense service has been used to spread malware (see my link above)
They did that with the previous iteration of Contributor. You can choose your monthly pay, and you'll pay for every AdSense ad on the pages you visited. I chose $2 and I got partial refund every month (probably because on desktop I also have uBlock, so this is mainly for mobile for me), and I got ads replaced by cute cat images. I really liked that Contributor.
> 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).
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.
I think GP means that you're signed in with Google, so you have a cookie linking your browser to your account, but Google does not do anything with the metadata from the requests that include the cookie of a paying contributor.
[deleted]
They already have my sign in information. When I say no tracking, I mean nothing other than that. Like what I search, which sites I go to, which videos I watch on YouTube, or mining my photographs for more advertising hints, and what not.
So, if I'm a publisher, I have a deal with Google to pay me for space on my website. You want to pay Google in such a way that they don't know you're visiting my website. Your payment to Google must make sure there are no ads on my website for you. So now Google can't pay me for the space on my website. Why would I even sign up with Google if they aren't going to pay me for the space?
The OP is not suggesting a technical solution but a contractual one based upon law and trust. The hypothetical scenario is that if she pays Google then Google shows no adverts and does not log her activities for beyond the bare minimum to pay the site its share, Google does not use the logs for other purposes and deletes the logs as soon as legally possible.
"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.
I don't think trust depends on how much you pay somebody who you do not trust. But I may be wrong.
I understand your sarcasm. I personally use all of Google's services heavily, but I'll explain my friend's point of view which is not completely unreasonable IMO:
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.
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.
This is exactly what the first version of contributor was, clearly it was not popular enough to keep around.
I had never heard of it. Wish I had; I've been wanting something like this :(
Because it is extortion?
I wish they would launch this; I happily pay $10/month for YouTube Red right now for exactly this.
> I wish they would launch this; I happily pay $10/month for YouTube Red right now for exactly this.
And here I wish I could pay for YouTube Red.
From what I've heard, YouTube Red users get Google Play Music for free. Ironically, I pay Google more than $10 a month for Google Play Music alone, but they won't let me pay for YouTube Red, even if I want to.
Why? God knows.
If they're going to be the gatekeepers to paid online content, I'd be furious if they botch that one up too with the same kind of regional discrimination and limitations.
And knowing Google though, that's probably exactly what they're going to do. Because that's what they always do.
And here I wish I could pay for YouTube Red.
From what I've heard, YouTube Red users get Google Play Music for free. Ironically, I pay Google more than $10 a month for Google Play Music alone, but they won't let me pay for YouTube Red, even if I want to.
Why? God knows.
If they're going to be the gatekeepers to paid online content, I'd be furious if they botch that one up too with the same kind of regional discrimination and limitations.
And knowing Google though, that's probably exactly what they're going to do. Because that's what they always do.
I don't think Google makes the laws around distribution of music. Try talking to the RIAA and friends.
It's not a distribution issue - he already listens to the same music through Google Music scubscription as would be provided by Google Red, if it were available.
Google Red can still impose territorial restrictions.
Google Red can still impose territorial restrictions.
It's not Google Red that is imposing territorial restrictions. After all, Google Red doesn't own the copyright to the music in question, and the copyright owners get to make those decisions.
Then naturally, as soon as I try to sign up for it, I get told "Contributor is not yet available in your country" as it seems to be US-only at the moment.
That's okay, uBlock Origin with its whitelist I compiled with sites I know won't violate my browser with ads is still available in my country.
That's okay, uBlock Origin with its whitelist I compiled with sites I know won't violate my browser with ads is still available in my country.
>with sites I know won't violate my browser with ads
But that's one of the problems. You know they haven't violated your browser yet but that's no indication that they won't in the future. A lot of people trust/trusted Imgur and whitelisted their ads, and they were rewarded with an ad network that was redirecting them to malware sites. It's cleaned up now, but what's to say it won't happen again? Ars Technica suffered a similar situation a while back. Reddit has had it happen too. All seemingly trustworthy sites.
It's not safe to turn off your ad blocker, there are no third-party ad networks you can trust. The only acceptable ads IMO are native sponsored content, which sites don't like because it's extra work. But guess what: you can't (easily) block native sponsored content.
But that's one of the problems. You know they haven't violated your browser yet but that's no indication that they won't in the future. A lot of people trust/trusted Imgur and whitelisted their ads, and they were rewarded with an ad network that was redirecting them to malware sites. It's cleaned up now, but what's to say it won't happen again? Ars Technica suffered a similar situation a while back. Reddit has had it happen too. All seemingly trustworthy sites.
It's not safe to turn off your ad blocker, there are no third-party ad networks you can trust. The only acceptable ads IMO are native sponsored content, which sites don't like because it's extra work. But guess what: you can't (easily) block native sponsored content.
Don't feel bad, there are literally only 1 dozen sites that it works on, and so you probably don't care about it right now anyway.
This doesn't seem that useful to me as only a small number of sites (none of which I visit) support it.
Hypothetical question: If I were allowed to bid on my own ad impressions - and if I won an auction, no ad would be shown - how much would it cost a month for me to see no adverts? (I realize this is heavily dependent upon the type of sites that are involved, so I guess take the average HN user as an example).
Hypothetical question: If I were allowed to bid on my own ad impressions - and if I won an auction, no ad would be shown - how much would it cost a month for me to see no adverts? (I realize this is heavily dependent upon the type of sites that are involved, so I guess take the average HN user as an example).
That's exactly what Contributor used to do. They charged $7/mo and refunded any money they didn't use. Unsure why they changed it.
According to my first search result [1], average CPC is 2.04$ with 1.16% CTR. Say you see 200 pages a day, 2 ads each. You end up at 9.5$/day.
https://www.hochmanconsultants.com/cost-of-ppc-advertising/
https://www.hochmanconsultants.com/cost-of-ppc-advertising/
Shouldn't you multiply by your specific click through rate? For many people, this is 0.
This is certainly relevant to the ad-blocker debates. Counting up "lost revenue" at all-user clickthrough rates is a fairly dirty trick when people running adblockers almost certainly have exceptionally low clickthrough rates.
(It's a lot like the creative accounting around media piracy, actually. Assuming that 100% of people who pay $0 for a torrented movie would have paid $10 instead is absolutely deranged.)
(It's a lot like the creative accounting around media piracy, actually. Assuming that 100% of people who pay $0 for a torrented movie would have paid $10 instead is absolutely deranged.)
Fair points, but... The whole point of contributor seems to be the warm fuzzy feeling that you still contribute, without seeing ads. At what level is the feeling warm and fuzzy enough? That, in my opinion, would be the correct price for contributor.
Indeed. I'm almost 30 and I don't think I've ever clicked on an ad in my life. Cost per impression seems more relevant.
I only click ads when the content jumps at the last second and suddenly it's an ad under my cursor, and other such fun mistakes.
The thing is, for Google we have CPI = CPC • CTR. Which means: if you never click an ad, no money ever changes hands. Thankfully our usage of the web is subsidized by those who do click ;-)
Those are paid search numbers. Display is for like avg $2 cpm. (.06% ctr, but it's paid based on impressions not clicks)
So each ad gets a quality score based on clicks. After a few days of no clicks, your own ads would be pulled for a higher quality and more profitable ad would replace it.
Display ads don't get quality scores, that is only for search ads. Display is just auction price.
One has to mention the Brave browser for comparison: https://brave.com/ -- similar concept but using Bitcoin. The accounting at https://brave.com/publishers.html looks like you as the reader can DECIDE whether you want to issue micropayments to a particular site or not, and publishers don't have to explicitly opt-in beforehand (thereby instantly including all of the web). A publisher won't be able to charge different prices, but a publisher with goodwill (hence users opting on their own to pay that publisher) will make money. This seems like a better execution.
+100 for Brave. Also worth noting you can still block ads without paying with Brave. But if you want to contribute, then you can.
They also just raised $30M+ with an ICO :)
Don't know, feels a bit like ransom when coming from Google, not the publisher.
Also what I thought. If this starts becoming widely used, then Google would be essentially getting a share out of the tip that readers would be giving to publishers, only for the service of "not showing ads and redistributing money".
I think sites are still free to offer "register and pay us to see no ads" model, like many already do. Implementing that will cost them money too (especially dealing with accepting payments), or they can just use Google's implementation and just give Google their bank account information, Google takes care of the rest.
I think that the ideal here is that something like this manages to supplant AdSense as Google's main actual business.
But the issue is that for AdSense, Google solicits ad buyers, removes scams, and distributes traffic. If you're paying to not see ads, it's unclear what good Google is doing compared to just paying the publisher.
It's not zero-value, since the transaction costs of paying every publisher are crippling. But there's no definitive reason to look to Google for this value.
It's not zero-value, since the transaction costs of paying every publisher are crippling. But there's no definitive reason to look to Google for this value.
Good luck with that.
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 opened up to any publisher who displayed ads on their websites through Google AdSense without requiring any sign-on from publishers.
Since November 2015, the program was available for everyone in the United States. Google Contributor stopped accepting new registrations after December 2016 in preparation for a new version launch in early 2017.[1] On January 17th, Google Contributor was shut down. As of January 17, 2017 8:40 AM no replacement had been announced.
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 opened up to any publisher who displayed ads on their websites through Google AdSense without requiring any sign-on from publishers.
Since November 2015, the program was available for everyone in the United States. Google Contributor stopped accepting new registrations after December 2016 in preparation for a new version launch in early 2017.[1] On January 17th, Google Contributor was shut down. As of January 17, 2017 8:40 AM no replacement had been announced.
The first iteration was cancelled, this is the new iteration that launched yesterday.
This was already going to be a tough sell with major publishers.
If Google isn't willing to promise they'll keep it around for a couple years, it simply won't be worthwhile for publishers to invest the engineering (and legal resources) to do these deals and the integrations. I don't expect this latest incarnation to gain traction in its current form.
I do have hope for this subscription model still. If Google or someone else makes a serious go of it, I'll be cheering them on.
If Google isn't willing to promise they'll keep it around for a couple years, it simply won't be worthwhile for publishers to invest the engineering (and legal resources) to do these deals and the integrations. I don't expect this latest incarnation to gain traction in its current form.
I do have hope for this subscription model still. If Google or someone else makes a serious go of it, I'll be cheering them on.
Why should we trust it this time?
I'm not sure where the "trust" issue is. You pay $x/month, you see less ads. If they shut it down, they stop charging you money and you start seeing the ads you saw before.
Wait so it only works on those 4 websites? I've only heard of Popular Mechanics, but I rarely (if ever) visit their site.
If this was more like Youtube Red, I'd be all over this. I would love to pay to remove all google ads. I get that uBlock exists, but I want to support the sites I use.
Unrelated: the sidenav thing is empty? WTF?
If this was more like Youtube Red, I'd be all over this. I would love to pay to remove all google ads. I get that uBlock exists, but I want to support the sites I use.
Unrelated: the sidenav thing is empty? WTF?
I don't understand why it doesn't work for all Google Ads.
The content creator would just like the money. They don't actually want to display the ads. If they could get the money without displaying the ads, they'd be over the moon.
Why doesn't Google make it work across all sites, and pay the sites using Google Ads the average revenue they were already getting per page view?
The content creator would just like the money. They don't actually want to display the ads. If they could get the money without displaying the ads, they'd be over the moon.
Why doesn't Google make it work across all sites, and pay the sites using Google Ads the average revenue they were already getting per page view?
They did that. It was the first iteration.
The problem is that - as described above - many websites use ads from multiple networks, so actually even if you paid, most ads did not disappear. It was more or less random. Also, it turns out ads make sites a lot of money (who knew), so to get even that sketchy coverage required you to pay a LOT.
The problem is that - as described above - many websites use ads from multiple networks, so actually even if you paid, most ads did not disappear. It was more or less random. Also, it turns out ads make sites a lot of money (who knew), so to get even that sketchy coverage required you to pay a LOT.
I feel like your second point was a missed educational opportunity for users. Ad views are worth a lot more to advertisers (and consequently, publishers) than what you are willing to pay - 'free content' isn't free and if you as a user aren't willing to pay for it then it's probably not fair to complain about the ads. The thing that upsets me is when I am willing to pay for content (Washington Post, The Economist, FT, etc.) and I still get served ads.
Online advertising reminds me of airline travel in the sense that people complain about the low quality service but are only willing to purchase the cheapest flights. The industry has shifted to accomodate what people actually want, not what they say they want.
Online advertising reminds me of airline travel in the sense that people complain about the low quality service but are only willing to purchase the cheapest flights. The industry has shifted to accomodate what people actually want, not what they say they want.
Well, Google gets a lot more than a few cents for many categories of ads. At the extreme case, medical lawsuit ads can charge around $50 per click.
It's bad for their brand and image. They promote their ads as least intrusive. If they are so user-friendly, why would anyone get them removed? It is simple brand management.
A little concerned, I'm bootstrapping my own version of what they have built, but with a clearer charging model and no need to block Ads IMO. If you care about blocking ads you are already doing it.
It'll be launching in literally a week or two... it's very simple to integrate and comes with it's own Wordpress plugin (and instructions to integrate your own CMS).
What advice do people have about this per article payment space; I have a load of ideas I want to try so maybe while Google concentrate on ads I'll be able to look at various optional payment models.
Initially I want to just charge a flat 5% + whatever Stripe fees you use to top up your wallet, but I'm concerned I'll get a lot of noise/scaling issues if I don't charge a monthly fee? Thoughts?
It'll be launching in literally a week or two... it's very simple to integrate and comes with it's own Wordpress plugin (and instructions to integrate your own CMS).
What advice do people have about this per article payment space; I have a load of ideas I want to try so maybe while Google concentrate on ads I'll be able to look at various optional payment models.
Initially I want to just charge a flat 5% + whatever Stripe fees you use to top up your wallet, but I'm concerned I'll get a lot of noise/scaling issues if I don't charge a monthly fee? Thoughts?
I had an idea for something similar to this as well. Have not put code behind it though. Could you post link to your solution?
It's not finished yet! Just Stripe Connect (50% done) and testing everything and a couple of small features that probably shouldn't be in version 1. Send me an email (see profile) or check paypip.com in the coming weeks...
You can use pihole or pyhole to just block them for your home, then vpn from your phone. No more ads.
Then buy subscription to sites you like.
Dont give google a percentage of everything.
Then buy subscription to sites you like.
Dont give google a percentage of everything.
The problem is that most (all?) site subscriptions now are all-or-nothing, and even if you do like a site, you probably like several, and paying $10-$30 per month (or whatever) each for even 5 different sites starts adding up real fast.
If sites were to offer an "article bank", it might be more compelling: you put in $X and that buys you Y articles, which you can read over the span of days, months, or years. But no one seems to be doing that, probably because they believe the economics of breakage is better.
If sites were to offer an "article bank", it might be more compelling: you put in $X and that buys you Y articles, which you can read over the span of days, months, or years. But no one seems to be doing that, probably because they believe the economics of breakage is better.
Or just buy a games console.
Articles on the internet exist primarily as free entertainment.
If I am going to spend money on entertainment, there are much more fulfilling options.
Articles on the internet exist primarily as free entertainment.
If I am going to spend money on entertainment, there are much more fulfilling options.
That's dismissing all the genuinely insightful articles that I discover through my subscription [1] to HN.
[1] Read: Addiction. :)
[1] Read: Addiction. :)
Perhaps read a book. Just visit your local real or virtual library.
My point is not that articles on the internet are useless. But there is a certain tunnel vision in these discussions where we forget there are other _even better_ ways to spend our time.
Whether you want education or entertainment, paying $x/month to Google is not the right way to achieve it. Go paintballing instead.
My point is not that articles on the internet are useless. But there is a certain tunnel vision in these discussions where we forget there are other _even better_ ways to spend our time.
Whether you want education or entertainment, paying $x/month to Google is not the right way to achieve it. Go paintballing instead.
Not disputing that. But reading HN is something that I can do during work while waiting on a job to complete. Reading a book is much harder because the information is not quite as bite-sized and thus harder to ingest if you have only five minutes at a time. And paintballing is a whole other level of impossible during work time. :)
a lot of people get a percentage of everything.
Credit card processors, the post office, transportation companies. ISPs, kinda.
"A percentage of everything" is another way of saying "in the infrastructure business".
Credit card processors, the post office, transportation companies. ISPs, kinda.
"A percentage of everything" is another way of saying "in the infrastructure business".
Remember when we were sold that ads payed for content so that could be free? Now you can pay extra to get ads anyway, the non Google networks don't care.
The web is turning into cable, and it only took a few years.
Wow, how much does this have to do with their announcement to add ad blocking to Chrome (only for other networks ads, I'm sure)? How have they not attracted regulator action yet? You'd think the EU would be all over that kind of behaviour.
Which announcement are you talking about?
I believe it might this one about Chrome support for the Better Ads Standards [1]
[1] https://blog.google/topics/journalism-news/building-better-w...
[1] https://blog.google/topics/journalism-news/building-better-w...
Everyone is forgetting that Google can provide such tool because of Chrome (60% market share); they don't need to track you. They already are.
Google it's tightening it's grip on the web. Yesterday the announced that they will apply the Better Ad Standard by 2018. They said they'll ban intrusive ads that block the user from the content, ads that play sound automatically, and flashy ads... Now "flashy" is so vague.
I already have an ad removal pass, it's called uBlock origin.
I use uBlock too - it's great. Sometimes a site will have an obnoxious popover or something that's usually relatively easy to create a rule for, but generally it works, and in combination with Ghostery I'm confident it's protecting me from most tracking, which is what I really want to avoid.
However it is an ethical dilemma, especially in a World where Contributor exists. Content is not free, hosting is not free, development and the application of security patches is not free. Currently sites are monetised using ads, and by using uBlock you're getting for free something that is not free. You are also inevitably causing people who do not have uBlock to 'pay' more, or contributing to putting the site out of business.
While Contributor obviously doesn't prevent Google from tracking your every step, and I'll still take steps to avoid data harvesting, I'll be buying it the moment it's available on any of the sites I read regularly.
However it is an ethical dilemma, especially in a World where Contributor exists. Content is not free, hosting is not free, development and the application of security patches is not free. Currently sites are monetised using ads, and by using uBlock you're getting for free something that is not free. You are also inevitably causing people who do not have uBlock to 'pay' more, or contributing to putting the site out of business.
While Contributor obviously doesn't prevent Google from tracking your every step, and I'll still take steps to avoid data harvesting, I'll be buying it the moment it's available on any of the sites I read regularly.
Well, I don't have an ethical dilemma. I would absolutely remove the extension the moment I can read or watch something without getting covered by full-volume-autoplay-ads and flashy popups.
Start by respecting my ears, my eyes, my laptop, and my time, then we can have an "ethical" discussion.
Start by respecting my ears, my eyes, my laptop, and my time, then we can have an "ethical" discussion.
I want a UBlock where in place of ads a single micro tipping facility is inserted. Maybe the website can remember this for the future, etc.
I've done a few PayPal tips but it's just too clunky / unfit for purpose.
I've done a few PayPal tips but it's just too clunky / unfit for purpose.
Brave is the first real solution to this issue. Big fan of Brave. Once they get the extensions more compatible then the user base will grow rapidly.
The Android version is great in that all ads are blocked. I will see if I can get my single LTC transferred into it.
Ah, thanks, I saw it here before but forgot about it. Will check out now.
[deleted]
I strongly disagree that contributors aren't providing content 'for free'. I request a stream of bytes from them, they provide a stream of bytes free of charge. Its up to me how I want to display those bytes, and I'm not stealing anything or breaking any contract by choosing not to render every single one.
They are providing content for free on the assumption that you will not block adverts. To imagine otherwise is disingenuous at best.
Why is it disingenuous. All they're providing is a stream of bytes, why should they get to dictate how those bytes are consumed.
They can hope for anything they like; this does not obligate me to indulge their wishes.
It's not exactly like torrenting music, but a bit (requires some tech skills, ambiguous morality) And at least in my circle of friends, Spotify pretty much killed that.
even assuming 100% buy-in for content providers for google pass as an ad replacement, it doesn't replace all the use cases of a decent ad-blocker (like ublock origin). For me, I block newrelic, google analytics, segment, and a whole bunch of non-advertising related sites that slow down the web. Doing this more than halves the load time and download requirements of just about any major site.
I absolutely agree, but you have to acknowledge that these are mostly things that only highly technical people care about. In the Torrent analogy, this would be like saying you like your music in lossless FLAC format, or DRM-free.
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.
Prisoner's dilemma: If only one ad-supported site switches to pay-per-view or a subscription model, people will go to the other ad-supported sites instead. It would take all of them to switch.
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.)
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.)
I do for the services that offer it.
I even pay for three different e-mail services and cloud storage.
If a site doesn't offer an ad-free experience? I block their ads.
I even pay for three different e-mail services and cloud storage.
If a site doesn't offer an ad-free experience? I block their ads.
and other background-script-blocking addons too
Good idea, extremely poor execution. Nobody is going to want to use it if different sites are charging you different amounts per page. People want predictable bills.
Completely disagree.
I want to be able to pay more for quality content and pay less for buzzfeed articles. I want content creators to be able to charge based on the the content they are producing.
I prefer a world where I can stop in a fine dining restaurant or a fast-food place, get the experience I want and be charged appropriately. I don't want a top of the line steak-house to have to find a way to serve my meal, while only receiving McDonald's priced payments. That's the problem with the current web.
I want to be able to pay more for quality content and pay less for buzzfeed articles. I want content creators to be able to charge based on the the content they are producing.
I prefer a world where I can stop in a fine dining restaurant or a fast-food place, get the experience I want and be charged appropriately. I don't want a top of the line steak-house to have to find a way to serve my meal, while only receiving McDonald's priced payments. That's the problem with the current web.
Having choices is all well and good, but I worry that making the pricing hard to predict will reduce the reach of this feature. But I guess they are only expecting a small subset of users to use it anyway.
Why not let the users choose what they want to pay? Because Google needs this to be net-positive for their revenue, but it would be a much better web if there was some kind of mechanism to automatically give small amounts of money (say 1/10th of a cent per page view) to site owners.
Why not let the users choose what they want to pay? Because Google needs this to be net-positive for their revenue, but it would be a much better web if there was some kind of mechanism to automatically give small amounts of money (say 1/10th of a cent per page view) to site owners.
Agreed. As long as it's clear what I'm going to pay before I open each article, I have no problem paying more for an article from a trusted news source than from a tabloid.
It's interesting you mention Buzzfeed because actually this price per page per site model doesn't work for them, at all - you'd need to be even more granular. They have both high quality journalistic content and those viral listicles all on buzzfeed.com - it'd be impossible to use a flat price per page sensibly.
Where are the steakhouses? That's my problem with the current state of the paid content web; it seems to be a race to the bottom, with few exceptions (and the exceptions in my experience seem to be mostly enthusiasts doing it not for a living).
Is it not the point that this system will incentivize better content by allowing creators to charge what the market is willing to pay for content?
This is ancient? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8637365
This appears to be a new iteration. According to this Android Police post [1], Contributor was discontinued in late 2016, with Google saying that an improved version would become available in "early 2017."
[1] http://www.androidpolice.com/2017/06/01/google-launches-fund...
[1] http://www.androidpolice.com/2017/06/01/google-launches-fund...
[deleted]
I had never heard of this until this posting!
I really think a much better system would be for websites to adopt GNU Taler, and allow people to conduct micropayments using digital cash. The system is about as seamless as Flattr, except that the website can actually charge an amount rather than a fraction.
But, most importantly, Flattr guarantees the anonymity of consumers' transactions. So the big G won't have a log of what websites you paid to access.
But, most importantly, Flattr guarantees the anonymity of consumers' transactions. So the big G won't have a log of what websites you paid to access.
I like how Google doesn't remove ads from it's own sites
Their own ads of course fit the "standards" that they themselves designed.
Any other way and they'd only harm their own business model. This is a defensive move against full-scale ad-blockers, nothing more.
Hmmm - the service sounds a little bit like Flattr, the logo looks quite a bit like Flattr - now what?
Yeah, this is totally Flattr. Except for the even-split concept.
they should be flattrd, obviously
How is this different from paying for an adblocker? There is lots of good free ones.
I pay publishers I like for their content (buying newspapers, subscriptions, etc) and I don't get why Google should be the middleman in this.
I pay publishers I like for their content (buying newspapers, subscriptions, etc) and I don't get why Google should be the middleman in this.
It's not that Google "should" be the middleman in this, it's that Google "wants" to be be the middleman in this, since you paying for a subscription directly cuts them out of that sweet ad revenue.
In simple terms , is this a moral way rather than using ad blocker ? Rather than using ad blocker I get this pass , where I won't be seeing ads and at same time feel I am letting publisher earn some money ?
Only if you accept ad providers are in charge of dictating morals and they are entitled to your money by default. Publishers can and should look for alternative monetization strategies.
Hmm. Google gets money to show you ads. Google gets money not to show you ads.
Who is winning? (Google) Who is losing? ( everybody else, especially you)
Who is winning? (Google) Who is losing? ( everybody else, especially you)
the question is do i want to get tracked by google contributor or google ads?
If Google contributor also came with a promise to not track you then I would consider. Until then, I'm using uBlock.
I don't mind advertising at all.
I don't mind advertising at all.
Yeah, the main issue with the "scheme" is "works with your Google account to remove ads". So not only am I paying, I'm also inconvenienced by having to have a Google account and I have to be permanently logged in.
This is online music all over again. I'm not being presented with an option that is superior to the unprofitable solution I'm currently using. As long as using adblockers is a better experience than paying for content, it simply isn't going to work.
This is online music all over again. I'm not being presented with an option that is superior to the unprofitable solution I'm currently using. As long as using adblockers is a better experience than paying for content, it simply isn't going to work.
I can just imagine; try contributor once, get drowned in invasive ads because you've already shown you're willing to pay for less ads.
Hey, do you remember that time when people thought Google would never do any sketchy or annoying stuff to their users ? That's now so far away...
"Don't be evil"
Yeah right...
Yeah right...
With 12 websites out of which I visited 1, once, I suspect another Google abandoned project in 18 months.
I feel like I'm going to remember visiting this website for years to come. Either because this is will be future, or this is one of the biggest bets Google has made and failed.
I like the technology and pricing model, but I don't think that it is being put to its best use. I think a better use would be for news sites that require a login to view articles. At present I usually just go without viewing many as I can't afford to sign up to 10 different sites where I might view a couple of articles each week. If I could make a one off payment per article then I'd be all over it.
>a small portion is kept by Google to cover the cost of running the service
This is incredibly cheeky.
This is incredibly cheeky.
Well, there certainly is a cost involved in running (and developing) the service. It would be more credible, though, if they disclosed the size of that "small portion".
Somebody should do this for mobile game advertising. A player buys a $5 card with allows them to skip ads in all participating mobile games until such time as the $ is depleted. If that card worked across lots of games, it would be a great convenience. Considering ARPDAU from ads for mobile games isn't often more than $0.01, it would be a win-win for gamers who hate ads and want to play free mobile games.
So, this is kinda like Blendle, but for the open web. I'm not too sure if this'll fly.
Personally, there's a certain flinch, a certain decision before opening any article in Blendle as I evaluate if it's worth the price mentioned. I'm sure the same will manifest itself, perhaps in uglier forms if I set out to use Contributor. Do you guys think so?
Isn't this how the mob works? Pay us to protect you from us.
You mean extortion.
No. Google don't demand that you view ads, the content creators of the pages you visit do.
This is an advertising company imaging a future of ad-blocking browsers and dabbling in a new revenue stream: providing a platform for patron/creator and taking a slice of the dough.
No. Google don't demand that you view ads, the content creators of the pages you visit do.
This is an advertising company imaging a future of ad-blocking browsers and dabbling in a new revenue stream: providing a platform for patron/creator and taking a slice of the dough.
That's like a Google tax, with the plus that you consciously agree to let it track you more than ever... wtf!
im not sure this is a good idea (as a consumer) anything which injects extra buying decisions in my life seems like a bad idea. Imagine having to wonder if I really wanted to spend that 0.01 cents on the next page of popular mechanics or not. I'd rather pay more for say, unlimited monthly access
That's the thing that really annoys me about human psychology (to which I myself am of course not immune). I don't subscribe to any sites that offer subscriptions because I rarely visit any one particular site to make it worth it (I rarely, if ever, run into, for example, the NYT free article limit). I block all ads, but I certainly wouldn't mind paying a reasonable per-article price all the same.
By not offering per-article pricing, they're actually _losing_ money from me, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if going to per-article pricing would result in less revenue than monthly subscriptions overall.
By not offering per-article pricing, they're actually _losing_ money from me, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if going to per-article pricing would result in less revenue than monthly subscriptions overall.
This has been the predominant reason for micro-transaction services failing in the past - when something costs more than zero there has to be a conscious decision made on the part of the consumer, and that decision making process is often enough of a barrier to stop them purchasing. For something very cheap the financial cost itself may be irrelevant but the cognitive cost of making a decision definitely isn't.
That problem is compounded by the fact a very low cost equates to a very low value in the mind of the purchaser. This manifests as a thought process like "if this only costs 0.01c then it's probably not worth buying", and the user leaves. That's hard to work around.
As far as I'm aware no one has ever implemented micro-transactions successfully. The best example to date, which is mobile gaming in-app purchases, isn't really micro-transactions in the usual sense. In a game like Candy Crush you buy tools to help you advance more quickly so you don't have to grind through a hard level dozens of times. You're really buying your own time (so you can play the game less, which is kind of weird really). Time is something people value, so they're very happy to pay. The model doesn't really apply to other purchases.
That problem is compounded by the fact a very low cost equates to a very low value in the mind of the purchaser. This manifests as a thought process like "if this only costs 0.01c then it's probably not worth buying", and the user leaves. That's hard to work around.
As far as I'm aware no one has ever implemented micro-transactions successfully. The best example to date, which is mobile gaming in-app purchases, isn't really micro-transactions in the usual sense. In a game like Candy Crush you buy tools to help you advance more quickly so you don't have to grind through a hard level dozens of times. You're really buying your own time (so you can play the game less, which is kind of weird really). Time is something people value, so they're very happy to pay. The model doesn't really apply to other purchases.
Google: Nice internet ya got there. It'd be terrible if something were to happen to it like, say, ads everywhere. But if you just give me a few dollars I'll protect ya from 'em.
Edit:
>How it works You load your pass with $5. Each time you visit a page without ads, a per-page fee is deducted from your pass to pay the creators of the website, after a small portion is kept by Google to cover the cost of running the service. The price per page is set by the creator of the site. You will be informed in advance if a site creator changes their price per page. Contributor is easy to update: change settings and add sites or remove them from your pass at any time.
I love the sound of this, I just do not like the idea that it is Google doing it. It feels ... dirty somehow. A third party doing this I have no problem with.
Edit:
>How it works You load your pass with $5. Each time you visit a page without ads, a per-page fee is deducted from your pass to pay the creators of the website, after a small portion is kept by Google to cover the cost of running the service. The price per page is set by the creator of the site. You will be informed in advance if a site creator changes their price per page. Contributor is easy to update: change settings and add sites or remove them from your pass at any time.
I love the sound of this, I just do not like the idea that it is Google doing it. It feels ... dirty somehow. A third party doing this I have no problem with.
How is this better than the old Contributor?
I've always wanted a way to simply specify the minimum bid (by bidding myself) for my attention into the ad exchange. This peer-reviewed pricing seems like it adds lots of cognitive overhead for me?
I've always wanted a way to simply specify the minimum bid (by bidding myself) for my attention into the ad exchange. This peer-reviewed pricing seems like it adds lots of cognitive overhead for me?
It's U.S.-only? Are you kidding me? So this will actually restrict who can visit a website, as opposed to the ad-version?
Whoever came up with that bright idea?
Whoever came up with that bright idea?
It just means people outside the U.S. will always see the ads, and won't be able to choose to pay with Contributor instead.
I'm not saying this isn't a hilarious embarrassment for a global company like Google to keep launching products U.S. only, but it's not as bad as you're making it sound: It will simply not have a noticeable impact on international users.
I'm not saying this isn't a hilarious embarrassment for a global company like Google to keep launching products U.S. only, but it's not as bad as you're making it sound: It will simply not have a noticeable impact on international users.
[deleted]
Almost. I would pay money to NOT be tracked everywhere by a big company. It's easy to misunderstand.
Thanks, as always, for understanding privacy big G.
Thanks, as always, for understanding privacy big G.
Google at it again to kill the web, now making commodization of web contents mainstream.
You WON'T BELIEVE YOUR EYE what GOOGLE will do NEXT! - $0.5
You WON'T BELIEVE YOUR EYE what GOOGLE will do NEXT! - $0.5
I love the idea, but go to some lengths to try and stop Google sucking in my web history, and I don't think this will help.
My idea in this space is to launch the no-ad-network. Basically you would pay them to bid on your behalf across all exchanges for your cookie. It would either display nothing, nice photos or maybe even some customized data about the site you are on. Everyone wins.
It simply isn't worth it as Google doesn't actually enable content creators unless you create content on their sites. We need a better way to say give content creators something akin to Patreon but easier.
Is it me, or the pricing per page view isn't displayed anywhere in the overview?
Of course, if i click on the links to the actual enrolled sites i get 'this service is not available in your country' so it may be there.
Of course, if i click on the links to the actual enrolled sites i get 'this service is not available in your country' so it may be there.
This is terrible. This is where Google is trying to control the web even more than they do already. If this sticks around, if this actually happens, then this will destroy what so many have worked to achieve.
Let's actually sit down and think about this. If this happened, there would be some big changes to the web. (Note- this is a quick response. I should write a real paper about this)
First of all, now that people would be paying for no ads, websites will overload their sites with ads, because Google will have the solution that "everyone is choosing anyway". It would make it "OK" to have tons of ads on your site, because there's a solution.
Then, your web experience becomes terrible. For a "small fee", you can keep a "nice" experience- one that used to, and always should, be free. However, if you don't give Google your money, then your web experience is going to be so filled with ads that content will take forever to load. And even if it does load, it'll take 30 minutes to read an article, because every 30 seconds you'll have your regular add popups. Then, you'll have the sidebar ads that follow you. Or the mobile ones that get in your way as you scroll. You won't be able to view content, because ads will have taken over even more than they already have.
Now, in this terrible future, what about those that can't afford Google's "small fee"? They'll be condemned to the ad version of the entire web- one that doesn't load properly, that people have started to discard. The true "web" will be the one where you pay to view. These people won't have access. And, if they aren't able to pay the small fee, then most likely they're accessing the internet from a slow connection. Maybe it's a library that can't afford the fee either. Or maybe it's in the home, and they can only afford small internet speeds and second hand computers. Not everyone has the money to buy a brand spanking new macbook /pro/air from Apple.
So now, 5 years down the road, there's two versions of the web. The one that Google controls and tracks 100% (oh yeah, we didn't even get to that yet), and the one that is so ruined with ads, that the people make a decision. A big one. Let's just get rid of the ad version of the web. You can't use it anyway, so there's no use. The only way to go- is to give your monthly payment to Google, so that you can access the web. Now, you gotta pay to view the web at all. The free web is gone. Google took it away.
There's also Google, sitting on their even exponential growth pile of money, tracking every web user. Sure, there may be other competing services that let you "into" the web, but they're also gunna track you. No doubt about that.
There's so much more that I haven't even said. How will websites determine how much a "view" is? What about requests that are half loaded? How will you know how much it costs to view a webpage? Not all web content is created equal. Definitely not.
There's so many more things. So many more.
We can't let this happen.
Let's actually sit down and think about this. If this happened, there would be some big changes to the web. (Note- this is a quick response. I should write a real paper about this)
First of all, now that people would be paying for no ads, websites will overload their sites with ads, because Google will have the solution that "everyone is choosing anyway". It would make it "OK" to have tons of ads on your site, because there's a solution.
Then, your web experience becomes terrible. For a "small fee", you can keep a "nice" experience- one that used to, and always should, be free. However, if you don't give Google your money, then your web experience is going to be so filled with ads that content will take forever to load. And even if it does load, it'll take 30 minutes to read an article, because every 30 seconds you'll have your regular add popups. Then, you'll have the sidebar ads that follow you. Or the mobile ones that get in your way as you scroll. You won't be able to view content, because ads will have taken over even more than they already have.
Now, in this terrible future, what about those that can't afford Google's "small fee"? They'll be condemned to the ad version of the entire web- one that doesn't load properly, that people have started to discard. The true "web" will be the one where you pay to view. These people won't have access. And, if they aren't able to pay the small fee, then most likely they're accessing the internet from a slow connection. Maybe it's a library that can't afford the fee either. Or maybe it's in the home, and they can only afford small internet speeds and second hand computers. Not everyone has the money to buy a brand spanking new macbook /pro/air from Apple.
So now, 5 years down the road, there's two versions of the web. The one that Google controls and tracks 100% (oh yeah, we didn't even get to that yet), and the one that is so ruined with ads, that the people make a decision. A big one. Let's just get rid of the ad version of the web. You can't use it anyway, so there's no use. The only way to go- is to give your monthly payment to Google, so that you can access the web. Now, you gotta pay to view the web at all. The free web is gone. Google took it away.
There's also Google, sitting on their even exponential growth pile of money, tracking every web user. Sure, there may be other competing services that let you "into" the web, but they're also gunna track you. No doubt about that.
There's so much more that I haven't even said. How will websites determine how much a "view" is? What about requests that are half loaded? How will you know how much it costs to view a webpage? Not all web content is created equal. Definitely not.
There's so many more things. So many more.
We can't let this happen.
This is also a quick response, on my part.
Basically: you seem to believe people have a right to view the web cheaply. I would argue otherwise. For most of history, humans have had no opportunity to obtain content for free - in fact, for the most part, books and literature have been expensive novelties for all but the most hyper-privileged.
The idea people should pay for content does not seem to me a violation of some inalienable right.
Basically: you seem to believe people have a right to view the web cheaply. I would argue otherwise. For most of history, humans have had no opportunity to obtain content for free - in fact, for the most part, books and literature have been expensive novelties for all but the most hyper-privileged.
The idea people should pay for content does not seem to me a violation of some inalienable right.
You're right, and you bring up a good point. Almost nothing is free, and there is always a cost. So it makes sense that ads started coming into the web in the beginning, so that people might click them and people who hosted the content might get money that way. However, nowadays, that's not enough. There's usually more than just one ad.
Obviously my comment was the "cynical" view, and looked at a future that may not even come to fruition. There are some benefits too. However, I think that I would prefer that the web be supported in different ways. I haven't thought long and hard about the "best way", but it makes me think of websites that limit how many times you can view their content. Take the New York Times for example. If I remember correctly, they let you view ~10 articles or something, and then from there, you have to pay to see more. That could be a potential way to keep content supported? Let the websites choose themselves how they want to monetize content. Maybe that's better than Google holding accounts for anyone who wants to access the ad free web? I'm not sure what the best solution is.
In the fantasy future I mentioned in the first comment, I could see there being a pay-to-entry model for the web, if the ad free and ad versions of the web started separating and they just "killed" off ads. Then, to access the web in the first place, payment would be required, and would have to be refilled.
This is one reason I love HN - discussions get me thinking. I appreciate your comment, and you're right. All content just can't be free. I guess I just don't like the possibility of the web turning into a pay-to-view model. I'd rather let the sites choose individually, that way, no one has control over it all. But yeah.
Obviously my comment was the "cynical" view, and looked at a future that may not even come to fruition. There are some benefits too. However, I think that I would prefer that the web be supported in different ways. I haven't thought long and hard about the "best way", but it makes me think of websites that limit how many times you can view their content. Take the New York Times for example. If I remember correctly, they let you view ~10 articles or something, and then from there, you have to pay to see more. That could be a potential way to keep content supported? Let the websites choose themselves how they want to monetize content. Maybe that's better than Google holding accounts for anyone who wants to access the ad free web? I'm not sure what the best solution is.
In the fantasy future I mentioned in the first comment, I could see there being a pay-to-entry model for the web, if the ad free and ad versions of the web started separating and they just "killed" off ads. Then, to access the web in the first place, payment would be required, and would have to be refilled.
This is one reason I love HN - discussions get me thinking. I appreciate your comment, and you're right. All content just can't be free. I guess I just don't like the possibility of the web turning into a pay-to-view model. I'd rather let the sites choose individually, that way, no one has control over it all. But yeah.
"sorry, contributor is not available in your country" (france)
I wonder what kind of reaction site owners will have to this; I can think of a lot of smaller sites or forums that rely on Google ads + premium access with no ads for revenue.
Wow. I'm really (sounds strange saying this to myself) excited about this Google project.
I really hope this works out. As much as I dislike advertising...and Google...something has to happen. The "ad blocker" - "ad blocker blocker" arms race is patently stupid. There has to be a way to get money to content providers so they can opt out of the madness. Google will still be able to provide them with all the sweet sweet surveillance data that they thrive on.
One problem at a time, I guess.
I really hope this works out. As much as I dislike advertising...and Google...something has to happen. The "ad blocker" - "ad blocker blocker" arms race is patently stupid. There has to be a way to get money to content providers so they can opt out of the madness. Google will still be able to provide them with all the sweet sweet surveillance data that they thrive on.
One problem at a time, I guess.
We also thought about this at Steady (www.steadyHQ.com). We built a system for recurring payments to independent creators and some of our publishers allow users to pay for not bugging them with their adblocker detectors. This generates additional turnover from users that normally do not get served any ads b/c they use adblockers, but I believe such an offering should encompass all ads, not just Google AdSense (why would you pay just to reduce the amount of
ads), and it should include removing paywalls (e.g. at a higher price point, to monetize "superfans").
I've got a new productname for this: Google Paywall
I'm sure there will be people taking this seriously because it is Google, but they are getting a bit desperate.
What's the advantage for the end user of this, over an ad blocker which is a free ad removal pass?
> What's the advantage for the end user of this, over an ad blocker which is a free ad removal pass?
You are paying to support sites you visit with money, instead of advertisers doing that, so you are still providing incentive to create the kind of content you consume.
You are paying to support sites you visit with money, instead of advertisers doing that, so you are still providing incentive to create the kind of content you consume.
The advantage is that you financially support the creation of content you value enough to read.
[deleted]
The reason this will fail is that it competes with free. Why pay google when you can install an ad blocker?
Is this spotify premium for web pages ?
It's too expensive for consumers.
Thanks Google, but im going to stick with ublock/umatrix and get ad removal for free
I guess you also need a google account...how does it work with "do not track"?
I'm not sure how much value I derive from ad-funded websites, besides maybe Google Search. There was a time most websites were free and run for the good of the community, not for profit and not as a full-time job. I could buy my high-quality content in the form of magazines and newspapers. Maybe that's the paradigm worth investigating - community generated, ad-free content on the web but paid-for, bundled (magazine-style) high quality content for sale. Delivered not through the browser but through some other, open platform (think zines, PDFs, epub/mobi).
For me, this is what an ideal web would look like. My ad-blocker would barely get a workout, and I'd happily pay for bundled (not pay-walled, bundled, downloadable) content as I did for many years with magazines.
No-one wants high quality content to disappear, but advertising and web paywalls are not the only options.
For me, this is what an ideal web would look like. My ad-blocker would barely get a workout, and I'd happily pay for bundled (not pay-walled, bundled, downloadable) content as I did for many years with magazines.
No-one wants high quality content to disappear, but advertising and web paywalls are not the only options.
Interesting choice of background image with a macbook air!
Why not just donate to the sites whose content you value?
So it's Flattr but run by the same company that also serves ads..
Eh.
Eh.
People will likely hesitate as it comes from Google.
This comes just after the BAT ICO? Interesting
Do you really think that Google cares about somebody's niche blockchain tech? Google Contributor is older than the whole ICO fad and has just been overhauled.
It doesn't work for Canada.
laughable uBlock alternative.
Nope. Trash. uBlock origin.
Good content will always find it's audience. Readers are far more likely to come back, if the content is engaging enough.
Problem is you have to be logged in to use this, same problem as with Youtube red. As soon as you open something in an incognito window.... who are you??
There aren't just a handful of Ad networks, there are thousands if not millions out there. On top of that, they utilize each other to push out ads in a horrid rat king like incestuous jumble. Any payments to avoid ads served by these companies would require compensating all of these companies, the end result predictably would be movie studio accounting that leaves the content provider with nothing in the end.
This setup does nothing to address the privacy issues people have with companies like Google tracking their comings and goings. Google is still at the heart of this system and still knows everything about you. To get any benefit from this system actually requires you to embrace Google. People want to maintain their privacy, they don't want to login to Google to get rid of ads.
It's easy to envision a system utilizing a crypto currency and a digital wallet held by your browser that you fill occasionally and that prompts you to pay a site similar to the manner in which Location Services work simply based on a meta tag a site provider puts in their page head containing their wallet and request pay amount and schedule. It's impossible to imagine Google, Apple, Facebook, or anyone who wants in your pants to allow themselves to be cut out of a revenue stream by such a system. Companies like this are double dipping by charging everyone else to be the broker and also by being the service provider being paid.
I honestly don't know if an ad free web is allowable. It's technically possible but everyone who isn't the content creator is going to do everything they can to stop it form happening.