Noted about not offering solutions and just throwing up objections. Hopefully this post gets more constructive as its goes relative to paying to watch ads. I am still on the fence about that but I think it can be one approach on an opt in basis that can’t be ruled out. Being paid to do Khan Academy or learn coding seem more promising to me. Why not stoke attention in a way that will lead to more end users building out the network? I think that’s the Unitas proposal to literally replace work with fun human development activity.
Expand the definition of Spam
Let me propose expanding the definition of spam to include anything that violates total end user control over end user interfaces. On the ad/sponsor/tracking free clean search and trending delist sites that break this rule. Use user feedback kind of like “Call Control” uses to block spam calls could trigger a DAC threshold for delisting. I’d say anything modal should result in a delisting but also a veto of further receipt of safe coin from dev and farming at least temporarily. The search engine should be the choke point against spam. By its very nature it is supposed to filter noise not run on it. I’ve thought about it for a while and my sense is that if the modal ad is allowed to be technically practical it will occur and sponsorship will set in and democratic society will be lost. It could take a second, it might not, but worthwhile society will be lost. Money is coercive speech and so is the modal ad a form of coercive speech (ads in general) its attentional abuse. When people in a country like the US are subjected to 20-30 billion (guess) modal TV style ads daily the result is deterministic. Imagine if the ad feed were switched to educational feed. Sponsorship is censorship, that’s its purpose or reason for being. Filtering out the filter makes sense.
People pay for empowerment
Coins to watch ads? No coins to watch coding videos and take Khan Academy style tests, this is like the “Unitas” model. Its interesting that Craig’s List, Netflix and Wikipaedia likely owe their success to being ad free. But that also goes for Google which kept the ads of the front interface and kept it uncluttered. It also applied to Amazon for a while, but both firms seem to be hiring the wrong kind of people and are slipping as they become more cluttered with junk and ads. Of course Google is spam or noise powered and Amazon is an actual retailer- Amazon crosses a line with its “sponsored” stuff though. Its nice that its labeled but it shouldn’t be there at all. Amazon is confused about who its customers are and its got a loyalty issue and at least a few deep conflict of interest issues. Google’s model inevitably spreads spam especially with the notion that Google is expected to somehow cash in on the spam. Its founders originally refused the search business a couple of times because they didn’t want to be involved with it. Craig’s list is possibly the closest (although it will allow employers to pay to post help wanted ads.) Wikileaks doesn’t strike me as completely honest and the others firms are sponsored by Wall St. style social uselessness.
Some pros of the pay to watch ads model:
The outer limit of end user income with a pay-to-watch-ads model might amount to reversing a monthly cable payment. If the approach took off it could also reduce sponsorship or censorship. It would portends some disintermediation and on some level raise awareness of the value of attention as an ultimate resource. But these are developed world implications. In the developing world
it would down scale accordingly in actual pay, but less goes further in that context. It could generate some important revenue for people who need it, but naturally it would compete with other models and be opt in. The zero phone services are trading minutes for ads. Still, in the developing world the ad to end user revenue would greatly benefit from being enough to purchase the products the ads displayed, otherwise its just an appetite stoker. The assumption be would that it would bring about the ability to make those purchases.
Opportunity Cost of being paid to watch ads may be too high:
Where there is a perfect matching in any moment opportunity cost is minimized as there would be nothing someone would rather do than make that particular purchase at that place and time. In that case there is no room for payment to watch the ad because the whole transaction stands on its own. Voluntariness is likely the key here and then why have ads to begin with? Better just to have great search without the overhead. If someone is already seeking the product, push is noise relative to accurate search.
If paying end users the full amount of the ad transaction vice paying it to some pushy middle man could catch on and replace the current useless model of forced ads it would be a radical improvement but its just one tool in the box relative to what could be done. My sense is the impulse buy demand creation part of the economy is incredibly parasitic. Even if people like products like Coca Cola those products should really die and its using drug pusher type tactics and making the products themselves addictive that keeps them going. Money is “coercive speech” and that coercion can be used to address apparently necessary situations or reduce freedom by creating wanton necessity.
The potential danger to decentralized systems
Apparently one way to counter a decentralized is to subvert its ideology via a cooptation. So anything that would implement elements of current models in the new model has to be scrutinized very carefully. At the same time the concern about showing up with knife at a gun fight needs careful consideration. But honestly let people be paid to do Khan Academy and paid to learn coding, pay them to be better builders and farmers. Give them the skills to build out not just the software but also the hardware.