A rant, with useful information, about the ‘Web Environment Integrity’ proposal by Google.
One of my first blog posts in a while, I go over Google’s recent web proposal, and point out exactly why it won’t turn out well. Hope y’all have fun with it.
Your opinion might not win any popularity contests here, but I’d have to agree that this is a natural consequence of the fact that people feel entitled to use online services for free, including not wanting to watch ads.
Voluntary donations generally just won’t work well enough for it to be a viable option in many cases, so sites have more or less had to optimize content for ad generating ad views because that’s usually the only way they can stay afloat.
Sure there’s some sites that get by with donations, voluntary payments or merch sales or whatever, but they’re the exception rather than the rule.
I find it ironic when people eg. complain about clickbait headlines and at the same time refuse to pay for news. This idea that we have to get everything for “free” online has directly led to the enshittification we all know and love
Almost like I said there are exceptions but they are exceptions rather than the norm. How about let’s not get into the whole “aha gotcha” mentality and actually read what others are saying?
I guess I have to spell this out: services that run purely off voluntary payment / donation do exist and I’m using one right now, but good luck running a business or even making ends meet with that model. It’s doable but rare and mostly non-profit.
And no I’m not saying a profit motive is necessary, but you can’t expect people running internet services, or writing newspapers, or whatever, to do it for free and alongside their day job. Yes, again, some do, but it can be a ton of work and not everybody has the capacity for it, for one reason or another
Note what I mentioned in the blog post: most will probably be fine with advertisements so long as they aren’t annoying.
You don’t get to act the victim when you actively hurt the UX by having avertisements that get all up in your face and want to eek out every single penny like we’re slaves.
There are plenty of non-annoying ads around. When ABP (I think?) tried to introduce a non-annoying ad white list, people collectively shat a brick and decided ABP had “sold out”, and not because the list was bad but because they don’t want any ads at all, period.
And it’s not like I love ads; I’d rather pay for services than have to see ads, but a lot of the time that’s not an option. We wouldn’t be in this mess if people were willing to either pay for services (which understandably is a problem for poorer people) or be subjected to even boring banners or video clips that don’t cover content.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !technology@beehaw.org
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Your opinion might not win any popularity contests here, but I’d have to agree that this is a natural consequence of the fact that people feel entitled to use online services for free, including not wanting to watch ads.
Voluntary donations generally just won’t work well enough for it to be a viable option in many cases, so sites have more or less had to optimize content for ad generating ad views because that’s usually the only way they can stay afloat.
Sure there’s some sites that get by with donations, voluntary payments or merch sales or whatever, but they’re the exception rather than the rule.
I find it ironic when people eg. complain about clickbait headlines and at the same time refuse to pay for news. This idea that we have to get everything for “free” online has directly led to the enshittification we all know and love
Said the person using an online platform for free, without ads
Almost like I said there are exceptions but they are exceptions rather than the norm. How about let’s not get into the whole “aha gotcha” mentality and actually read what others are saying?
I guess I have to spell this out: services that run purely off voluntary payment / donation do exist and I’m using one right now, but good luck running a business or even making ends meet with that model. It’s doable but rare and mostly non-profit.
And no I’m not saying a profit motive is necessary, but you can’t expect people running internet services, or writing newspapers, or whatever, to do it for free and alongside their day job. Yes, again, some do, but it can be a ton of work and not everybody has the capacity for it, for one reason or another
Note what I mentioned in the blog post: most will probably be fine with advertisements so long as they aren’t annoying.
You don’t get to act the victim when you actively hurt the UX by having avertisements that get all up in your face and want to eek out every single penny like we’re slaves.
There are plenty of non-annoying ads around. When ABP (I think?) tried to introduce a non-annoying ad white list, people collectively shat a brick and decided ABP had “sold out”, and not because the list was bad but because they don’t want any ads at all, period.
And it’s not like I love ads; I’d rather pay for services than have to see ads, but a lot of the time that’s not an option. We wouldn’t be in this mess if people were willing to either pay for services (which understandably is a problem for poorer people) or be subjected to even boring banners or video clips that don’t cover content.