Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.
- 172
- 4
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I've counted on the fact that the average normie will keep watching enough ads that the service will be supported even if it never makes a dime off my attention.
And apparently the average normie's tolerance for ads, even intrusive/obnoxious ones, is way above mine, so I usually don't have the option to just accept a few minimally intrusive ads to toss a few pennies in the coffer. So yes, I end up being the classic case of a free rider.
Which actually leads to a very annoying equilibrium overall, I think. I would be generally happy to pay a premium for a geniune, no-bullshit, "we won't serve you any ads ever" subscription service.
But as we've seen with the history of basically everything else, no matter how much money they make off the subscribers, they can always squeeze a few extra pennies on the margins off if they can serve them ads in addition to taking their subscription money.
So there's constant pressure to find a way to get paying customers to tolerate ads, and thus ads seem to inevitably sneak into the system. And as mentioned before, normies seem extremely tolerant of this, so me, as a subscriber who DOES NOT want ads, am not strongly considered in the equation.
If the Schelling point is serving as many ads as possible, the only way I can possibly express my disagreement is to block ads on principle, it seems like. If they will move over to my preferred equilibrium where everyone is only served exactly as many ads as they're willing to tolerate, I'd change my tune.
More options
Context Copy link