Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Core problem is that creators of value want to be paid for it. The delivery medium doesn't change that.



Much value is created by people who don't want to be bothered with payment because they are motivated by the social capital accruing from contribution to a community. Trying to pay for such gifts actually drives these contributors away, by devaluing their efforts - as though they were only doing it for the money. There is labor you literally cannot buy.


That class of people is not as large as you might think it is.


There's a strong selection bias, of course, given that I have structured my social life around communities of people who value community. Still, my impression is that it's less about wanting to be paid for creative work and more about needing to be paid for it, else they can't afford the time to do it. If we had a basic income system, I suspect you'd see a lot more work done for community benefit, without the overhead and distraction of payment.


> Core problem is that

[some]

> creators of value want to be paid for it.

The WWW has been a proof of concept of how much people will do _without_ direct monetary compensation. If you're thinking who's going to build Kayak on a glorified Gopher though, maybe you should start by asking where audiences will go when they find something that provides a better experience than Chrome.


I suspect the problem domain is more along the lines of work requiring capital expense - like remote war reporting which is tough to do from your bedroom in your pajamas. It takes real money.


No, I don't. I'm sure many others creators feel the same.


You and all the other freebie guys are welcome to create content without all the extra scripts then. Pretty simple no? It would appear though, seeing as this is considered a pretty big problem, that the vast majority of people do want to be compensated.


I can see at least 5 viewpoints someone might have about ads on their site:

* They don't care about the money and don't want ads on the site.

* They're someone whose content is the advertising. A database consultant might write an article on using indices to speed up low-selectivity queries. He doesn't need to plaster his site with ads, but his articles do serve a secondary purpose of advertising himself. Or something like Angie's List, where people literally visit the site with the goal of being advertised to.

* They don't mind unintrusive ads, and these help provide money and motivation to work more on the site. Google ads would be acceptable here.

* In addition to their site's primary content, they also write sponsored content for companies that give them enough money.

* They only care about extracting as much value from their site as possible. They might hire ghostwriters on Fiverr to write cheap articles, apply SEO techniques to get them to rank higher than they should, and then plaster noisy ads and popups everywhere. They might buy cheap traffic on low-contested keywords, and redirect them to sites with more expensive ads to arbitrage the traffic. They might have a form to collect your name, email address, and phone number; and then sell your information to a mortgage reselling company. They might have loud ads that play music on page load, that automatically play video, that pretend to be a Windows error dialog, that look like download buttons, etc. Some of these are arguably the ad networks' fault, but the maintainer of the website is ultimately responsible for anything that appears on his website. They might release news articles with clickbaity headlines just to drive traffic to their ads.

I think most people take offense to #5. A minority also take offense to #3, since these track location and can form profiles of you between pages. I don't think anybody really minds the #2 or #1 people.

If you banned ads entirely, you'd still be able to monetize using method #2.


Yes, the second option is the best however it is the one that scales the least. As the content creator will have to use their time to find comanies interested in sponsorship and with their line of work. Time spent not creating quality content.

This is where I think tracking went wrong. Advertisers were so happy they could track users that they (kind of) forgot to track the content. I think basing ads on the page content is, in the end way more safe and beneficial to everybody.


Value is a property of a market. If there is no market (like in free software because it's "free") or if people don't want to pay for it, there is no value.

In other words, create things is not enough.


There are three independent concepts: cost, use value (I usually abbreviate this as "value"), and price, or exchange value (which you are terming value).

There's rather more discussion of this in economic litereature than might be expected, both early (pre-Smith and 19th century) and contemporary.

Trying to make all three of these agree is a bit of a problem. Economic orthodoxy variously tries to do this / pretends they do (and mind, "agree" != "equal").

Content has cost. There's time and effort necessary to create it.

Content has value. It can improve, even drastically change, the lives of those it reaches. That cost may be negative as well -- disinformation or distraction, for exaple.

What content doesn't have much of is exchange value -- it's difficult to draw walls, fences, boxes, or whatever else it is that prevents free access -- around content such that people should pay to get it. And doing that ... has its own sets of problems (generally: under-provisioning of content, particularly to the economically disadvantaged).

Advertising essentially hijacks one content stream (that the audience seeks) with another (that the producer wants distributed). Advertising has value to the author, not audience, and so the author is willing to pay for it to be disseminated. This ... produces numerous perverse incentives. Crappy Web pages among them.

But claiming that no market value (exchange value / price) means no use value, or no cost basis, is simply false. Common, but false.


It was in the context of the comment.

"Therefore, in the course of the economic transactions (buying and selling) that constitute market exchange, people ascribe subjective values to the commodities (goods and services), which the buyers and the sellers then perceive as objective values, the market-exchange prices that people will pay for the commodities."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_fetishism#Objectifie...

It's not a personal point of view but it describes well the reality for most people.




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: