Re:The Public Interest Internet, by Robin Berjon
by digging on Tuesday June 18, 2024 @11:30AM
(#40718971)
> So that I can then maybe spend more money on the product being advertised?
You can spend it on anything you like, actually.
Re:The Public Interest Internet, by Robin Berjon
by roenxi on Tuesday June 18, 2024 @06:06PM
(#40722592)
> Why would I ever agree to that?
You're already looking at the ad. $0.02 > $0.00, so the situation is a strict improvement.
Re:The Public Interest Internet, by Robin Berjon
by Hasu on Wednesday June 19, 2024 @10:50AM
(#40728869)
No, it isn't. I use AdBlock and generally when I allow ads it's because I have no other way to pay someone who made something I appreciate.
I am happy to pay money to remove ads, but it would take a lot more money paid to me to add them in! Certainly not an amount that would be worth advertisers to pay me.
Re:The Public Interest Internet, by Robin Berjon
by roenxi on Wednesday June 19, 2024 @09:17PM
(#40733957)
Well, ok then this feature isn't for you. But you have an extra option if you want to make $0.02.
But in practice we know there is large group of people working to fund the internet, and I reckon the fair split might turn out to be that all of them (ad viewer, ad placer and content provider) get a slice instead of just the last 2. Think of it as the ad viewer's subsidy for supporting people who use ad blockers.
Who would take that deal? Getting paid $.02 in some cryptocurrency to look at an ad? So that I can then maybe spend more money on the product being advertised? Why would I ever agree to that? It's a bad deal for me. Why would the ad agency do that? It's a bad deal for them versus paying for captive eyeballs.