So I get ads are terrible, obviously. I run ad-blockers all the time. But people also get angry at paywalls. So that leaves me wondering, if not through ads or subscriptions, how is a news publisher supposed to sustain itself?
So I get ads are terrible, obviously. I run ad-blockers all the time. But people also get angry at paywalls. So that leaves me wondering, if not through ads or subscriptions, how is a news publisher supposed to sustain itself?
Maybe? I think they used to advertise based on the content and expected demographics for the website, which is an alternative method that doesn’t require invasive digital fingering.
This is reasonable for a hobbyist publication, it would make sense to buy ad space for a new fishing rod in Bass Fishing Quarterly or whatever. Harder when it’s something more generic as “the news”, but as a poster above said this is where quality journalism comes in. If millions of people want to read well-written pieces, advertisers are paying to get their products in front of millions of people.
But advertisers want the most bang for the littlest buck and it’s easier to buy targeted ads in the attention economy so here we are. I have no issue with the existence of ads in certain places, moreso the whole system built to track every aspect of your waking attention.
Yeah I understand that, but I will never support trading privacy so advertisers can generate more revenue, so I will continue to propose non-invasive alternatives and tell people supporting invasive methods that they are wrong.
This means that the ads will not be personalized and that people will receive ads the do not care for.
There are reasons why the advertising industry has adopted personalized ads and surveillance capitalism, because it is profitable and legal. Not because it is ethical or the right thing to do.
I mean most of the ads I get are meaningless to me despite being personalized, I feel like a lot of people say the same thing, but maybe I am in the minority here.
Either way, I don’t think you need to invade peoples privacy to advertise to them, but agree to disagree. You’re proposing and supporting a level of capitalism that I find repulsive, profit at all costs, privacy isn’t a cost I want to spend.
You are saying 2 conflicting things, but at the end of the day, it doesn’t matter what you feel, what matters is what actually happens.
And what actually happens is opt-out personalized ads with digital fingerprinting alongside surveillance capitalism.
Here is a book on the topic.
The Age of Surveillance Capitalism : The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power
I’m not sure what I said is conflicting, and I feel like your statement is trying to minimize the point I am making, but thats ok, I believe we will never come to agreement here because I firmly disagree with the disruption of privacy for the sake of advertisement.
You can say my feelings are meaningless, but as this gets more invasive people will seek ways to opt out, which I believe is meaningful, although you can say and feel whatever you want my friend :).
Thanks for the book rec, I’ll look it over!
I think we are in agreement that privacy is paramount.
Where we differ is that you seem to think it’s possible to have some form of personalized ads and maintain privacy. While I think modern day ads and especially virtual personalized ads are intended to subvert privacy, while simultaneously also creating a lot of profit for some of the most evil companies that exist today like Google, Amazon, and Meta.
This makes ads on the internet simply not ethical at all in my opinion. Which inturn means ads are not an appropriate solution for funding news or any other website.
I do hope you read the book.