|
Google is expanding its tool for publishers to combat ad blocking.
"Funding Choices comes at a cost; publishers have to meet the Coalition for Better Ads’ Better Ads standards, which Google’s Chrome ad filter enforces and which some consider another way Google is dictating the rules of the web. Publishers also have to share the revenue with Google if they get readers to pay. Finally, few publishers are able to get people to pay for online access in the first place." It should be noted that Google has (at least previously) paid two of the most popular ad blockers to have Google's ads whitelisted; effectively Google's revenue helps fund the development of ad blockers. Google then develops a tool for publishers to deal with adblocking...taking 10% (of monetised viewing) to do so. While Google may be virtue signalling an intent to solve the ad blocking issue, it fully intends on capitalising on the revenue opportunity it represents. This move (combined with their News Initiative to monetise new subs and GDPR requests to be 'controller') is aimed at making Google the gatekeeper to the content consumption experience for a large portion of the population. Any other takes/perspectives?
0 Comments
The internet is predicated on the notion of it being free. But what if this predilection was found to be the root cause of most of our media and societal ails; filter bubbles, 'fake news', misinformation and the spread of conspiracy theories, privacy breaches et al.
Our technological and in some ways societal future depends on what happens next. Jaron Lanier, a scientist, musician and writer is known for his work in virtual reality and his advocacy of humanism and sustainable economics in a digital context, and contends that when free digital systems and great tech entrepreneurs exploded there was a 'globally tragic, astoundingly ridiculous mistake, rather than a wave of evil where behaviour modification empires (we know them as social networks) sprouted and effectively 'broke' the internet'. He believes 'we simply just need to remake the decision'. Lanier suggests, that born of this period (in the late 1990s) was a 'mythical power which produced two different passions; for making everything free and for the almost supernatural power of the tech entrepreneur. (But) How do you celebrate entrepreneurship when everything's free?' These two things are at odds with each other and this decision for predominantly 'free' has resulted in systems which modifies users' behaviour in the process of allowing them to seek information and communicate with others via the internet. The only solution back then was the advertising model and just like users, the likes of Google and Facebook are hooked; unable to diversify from the proposition of cost centres to profit centres. His most notable thought; "I don't think our species can survive unless we fix this. We cannot have a society in which if two people wish to communicate the only way that can happen is if it’s financed by a third person who wishes to manipulate them.” Would/will users ever be able to be weaned from the 'free' model. Would we make a different decision if we knew back then? Would we being willing to remake the decision now? A comprehensive and contextualised account can be read via New York Mag Worth watching the TEDTalk in full. |
Archives
January 2019
Categories
All
Your comments are welcome and you are encouraged to express your views in a positive and productive manner in line with our Code of Conduct.
|
RSS Feed
Proudly powered by Weebly