Needing ad revenue and needing to track visitors are different things.

Structurally obviously we are now in a situation where “well targeted ads” can generate some revenue, and “well behaved ads” barely can. The future has to be one where dumber ads pay more because tracking isn’t technically possible and/or illegal.

> The future has to be one where dumber ads pay more because tracking isn’t technically possible and/or illegal.

The other option is that everything ad supported goes out of business because the ROI on dumb ads is negative.

I don't want to sound like I know this for a fact, but I'd just like to point out that the future doesn't "have" to be anything. There are always multiple options.

> The other option is that everything ad supported goes out of business because the ROI on dumb ads is negative.

Yes by “has to be” I was expressing a personal desire and prediction, nothing else.

It’s probably not one or the other but somewhere in between.

That's fair. I think I was tired when I read your original comment.

You have a nice day.

We have a past where dumb ads used to work reasonably well, and could sustain a huge diversity of publications of all sizes.

There may be some reason why this can't work again, but all of the reasons I can come up with point to a higher ROI for those ads, not lower.

"The future has to be one where dumber ads pay more because tracking isn’t technically possible and/or illegal."

So you're inching closer to the reality. Read your statement again though: where is this 'magical ad tech' that enables newsies to make a decent dolllar?

It's non existent.

Ergo, they are out of business and you get severely limited content.

So, either people can chose to share some basic information, pay, or get very little in return - that's the current 'business math'.

GDPR fails to take into consideration that math unfortunately.

A more progressive solution would be to create solutions not just legislation that doesn't actually change the dynamic.

You mean we are going to see proportionally more content from people who actually know what they are writing about rather than professional clickbait writers? Doesn't seem so bleak to me.

I am afraid the incentives are we'll see more press releases from sources. Guess who has an interest in paying to publish and host things? Those who have content which makes them look good. Not exclusively of course but certainly a higher proportion. Ironically the clickbait crap makes that sort of shilling less effective akin to how TV ads have less influence with streaming. It displaces the views and thus reduces incentive to produce it.

'Unpaid home hobbyist writers' don't have more credibility than newsrooms, with budgets, copy editors, massive networks of sources, researchers, professional staff support - which costs money.

I thought the 00s proved that embarassingly that they did, as five minutes of fact checking with a search engine proved they had gotten Middle School level facts deeply wrong.

This is a little bit sarcasm, fine but there news is professional business.

Random bloggers generally don't have credibility, they can in some instances check facts and even break big stories and so so in a very credible way, however, there's little incentive and they have no power, because they don't make money and mostly don't have an audience. More importantly, nobody cares about them. If they want to speak to 'The Minister of Defence' about an important event, the Minister will not respond. When the BBC/CBC/CNN needs that interview, the Minister will likely, if there's something on the agenda.

Because they don't have credibility, sources won't trust them which is the most major source of difficult-to-get-at information.

Wikileaks and other teams had to build credibility.

And of course the fact that news rooms cover a massive array of subjects.

Resigning the entirety of news to 'some checks on Google' is glib.

I would rather have the law lay the ground rules of what's acceptable in a society. "Free markets" (not totally free, but free enough) can adapt to the new terrain. IMO, most laws trying to get into the weeds and direct desirable business models end badly. They entrench current models, reward easily gamed metrics but not the intended results, or are written by lobbyists.

Even tracking ads don't allow many sites to make a decent dollar!

But if we assume that tracking ads provide enough revenue, and we make the tracking illegal, once the market settles I bet that non-tracking ads will be reasonably close.

> Ergo they are out of business and you get severely limited content

Yes. That’s a side effect I think needs to be taken into account. I see ad blocking and the GDPR as a way of cleaning out bad actors (and their content), but hopefully also a way to give an advantage to good actors. Like authorities shutting down restaurants that don’t pay their taxes. The selection short term goes down, jobs are affected etc., but it’s unfair competition if they aren’t playing fair.

> where is this 'magical ad tech' that enables newsies to make a decent dolllar? It's non existent.

To be clear I don’t mind if ad blocking and the GDPR in concert work to kill 90% of the 2000-2020 era web in terms of “free content”. Should the survival of online firms, content producers, the adtech industry etc even be a consideration here?

> people can chose to share some basic information

I’m all for that. But without transparency like what the GDPR tries to enforce, people aren’t making an informed decision.

I never consent to anything even on sites I really enjoy and wish would survive, because I don’t trust the chain of actors involved, nor do I understand exactly what I consent to.

But I’d be happy to fill in an extremely detailed survey about everything I’m interested in down to my shoe size, and have that data accessible by any site without even asking me. That together with the browsing context should be more than enough to show targeted ads.

In the end this discussion usually comes down to the question “yes you think subscriptions etc is better but don’t you think others should be free to pay with PII if both sides of the transaction agree? They are adults after all” to which my answer is basically “no”.