this post was submitted on 03 Oct 2023
1245 points (96.5% liked)
internet funeral
6900 readers
4 users here now
ㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤart of the internet
What is this place?
• [email protected] with text and titles
• post obscure and surreal art with text
• nothing memetic, nothing boring
• unique textural art images
• Post only images or gifs (except for meta posts)
Guidlines
• no video posts are allowed
• No memes. Not even surreal ones. Post your memes on [email protected] instead
• If your submission can be posted to [email protected] (I.e. no text images), It should be posted there instead
This is a curated magazine. Post anything and everything. It will either stay up or be lost into the void.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I use ad blockers but it isn't lost on me that services I use cost money to operate. That money is provided by selling data and ad clicks.
Because of ad blockers trying to cut off the revenue source we end up with a battle between companies and users where the most popular browser on the planet is adding things like this - https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2023/07/googles-web-integrity-api-sounds-like-drm-for-the-web/
I'd much rather provide the revenue for the services I find valuable and not have a ton of middleware enforcing web drm to ensure I'm advertised to.
Are you making the argument that ad blocking software is the reason for companies aggressively mining user data?
I'm arguing that add blockers are causing companies like Google to fight ad blockers. They aggressively mine data because it's profitable to target ads with it.
If millions of people didn't use ad blockers there wouldn't be much of a reason for them to spend engineering dollars on Web Identity DRM tools to attempt to prevent changes to web pages by blockers.
The ROI on selling bulk data and forwarding ads vastly outweighs whatever change you're dropping into the meter. Even if you do pay for a premium service, your data is still going to get collected and you're still going to look at ads, because why would Google just pass up on that money?
You'll have the data collection and ads obfuscated, through some combination of variant interfaces and marketing language and dense, unreadable EULAs. But its going to happen no matter how much you pay, because its cheaper to lie to you than to forgo this data collection.
But that's just it. We're not going towards an either/or model. We're going to a both model.
You seem to be under the impression that I think it is moving in the direction I'd like it to. I do not think that. I said that if it were offered to have a paid service I would prefer it.
Looking at calculated stats from 2016 which admittedly are out of date showed an ARPU of $6.70 a quarter. Assuming that has gone up by 10x and it's $70 per quarter I think a paid service is well within the realm of possibility.
As someone who no doubt is in the minority of users, I don't think having a paid option for those that would use it would have a big impact on the bottom line. Most people would pile onto the free service and let Google suck up all the data they want. For people like myself that don't click on ads intentionally, they'd probably make more money off of me individually by taking my money directly.
That's fine. But consider how the Netflix and Amazon model are following Hulu towards "ad supported" media, despite already being a paid-for service.
I don't think there's a threshold at which data providers will sincerely exempt the individual from surveillance and ads. Even if its something you're offered, all you're purchasing is deception. You'll still get your data siphoned surreptitiously. And you'll still get promos and teasers and native ads that the streaming service gets paid to show you.