Technology
This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.
Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.
Rules:
1: All Lemmy rules apply
2: Do not post low effort posts
3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff
4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.
5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)
6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist
7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed
view the rest of the comments
There are a dozen other venues for revenue. We need to move, as a society, away from advertising as a business model. It has become detrimental to society.
He's already hosting a ton of other things, obviously, so the additional load would likely be extremely minimal. And if he was accumulating a large load that would mean he was wrong about not being enough users.
I don't hate advertisements on the whole but the sort of aggressive ways in which advertising is delivered. YT ads can be relevant to you based on data collected about you but it still really feels like an assault to interrupt or preempt a video with an ad that isn't relevant to the video I'm about to watch.
The "sponsored content" parts of some videos don't feel nearly as intrusive or out of place. They're also easier to ignore. That's really been the big change to the Internet in my mind. Ads have gotten more obnoxious, obvious, and harder to ignore. In newspapers or magazines we generally got used to the ads and could, for the most part, filter them out. Imagine a magazine where the actual articles were sealed behind the flap of an advert. We'd lose our shit, and that's how it feels with the Internet for the most part.
They certainly can be but if there are 2 advertisers and one is the most relevant and the other pays them more money, which one do you think Google is going to show you?
That's because they're typically read by the creator. Artists, essentially. Professional entertainers. And not ad companies. Some of them (looking at you Wulffs Den and J2C) are actually very entertaining.
With clickable ads my understanding is they have a model to guess how likely you were to click it and they chose the ad with the highest value of the likelihood to be clicked times the price they'd get from the click. It's probably different with video ads, but maybe not, maybe they do likelihood to not be slipped instead.
The one that pays more because it's an auction, but an advertiser that pays more for a less relevant ad to a user won't be making as much money so there is an incentive to be more relevant.
There's a finite number of eyes.