Suppose I walk up to a tent at a festival that has a big sign that says "FREE BEER", and I ask a person there for a beer. They hand me a beer, and I go on my way. Was the beer free? I think was free.
Now, suppose I walk up to a Budweiser-branded tent at a Budweiser festival that has a big sign with a Budweiser logo on it that says "FREE BEER", and I ask a person there who is wearing a Budweiser polo shirt, a Budweiser lanyard, and a Budweiser hat for a beer. They hand me a beer in a Budweiser-branded cup, and I go on my way. Was the beer free?
Now suppose you walk up to a tent that offers you free beer, but before they give it you, you have to burn 2% of your phone's battery watching an ad from them. Then they hand you the beer and you go on your way. Was the beer free?
> They do serve ads [...] Your attention isn't free.
to something like this:
> They tag my ankle to mark me as a person who enjoys beer, and make me watch an ad until 2% of my phone's battery is depleted, and then they come to my home and knock on my door at night to sell me beer.
...which... I mean, huh?
Stack Overflow is invading your body, restricting your personal liberty, and visiting your home? Really? That's a fucking thing now?
I think they were extending the original point you were responding to, and remixing your own mixed metaphor of free beer.
In the attention economy, advertising has a cost that is borne by the advertiser and the consumer, up to and including loss of property rights in the case of content relicensure and trespass upon devices leading to excess battery usage, as well as loss of privacy due to geotargeted ads.
>I think they were extending the original point you were responding to, and remixing your own mixed metaphor of free beer.
Perhaps. But having been to many festival environments, I can definitely imagine a tent offering "free beer" that is actually approximately free -- both with, and without a slathering of advertising. (Actually, I don't really have to imagine it -- I've been there and have had that free beer.)
I can't imagine them coming to my house and knocking on my door at night to sell me more of it, though. That's absurd.
>In the attention economy, advertising has a cost that is borne by the advertiser and the consumer, up to and including loss of property rights in the case of content relicensure and trespass upon devices leading to excess battery usage, as well as loss of privacy due to geotargeted ads.
Well, sure. When viewed on a long-enough timeline, it becomes abundantly clear that nothing is actually free, comrade.
I can produce my own beer on a hypothetical plot of land that nobody owns, and that nobody else wants to use, and I can give someone one of these beers. For "free."
But it still has a cost. (And this, too, is an absurd reduction.)
> I can't imagine them coming to my house and knocking on my door at night to sell me more of it, though. That's absurd.
I interpreted that as a tongue-in-cheek hyperbolic metaphor relating to the ways that ad auction networks and other kinds of geofencing and geotargeting allow for deanonymization and reidentification of individuals for conversion tracking and behavioral analysis.
That’s the thing about these technologies - they’re dual-use in the sense that those who see the upsides use them generally with good intentions and ideally with affirmative consent. Just like the relicensed content, though, once the data is collected, the original creators, publishers, and third parties may not be able to control where it ends up, which is a negative externality, I think most would agree.
I think at a festival it's a little tricky to value (if it pulled you away from seeing your favorite band play a song, maybe this cost you the equivalent of $X, where that's what you would pay to see them perform that song. If no bands were playing, you walk over while chatting with friends - the same thing you'd be doing if there were no free beer tent - it was free)
When I'm on stack overflow my time is valuable. I'm programming which can pay me something like $50-300/hour (maybe more?)
How expensive is the 1 second I spend reading an ad? Let's call it $50/3600. Is that expensive? By my most conservative estimate it's over 1¢.
Should we round that down to free given that I've spent hours/many page loads on stack overflow? I guess that's up to you.
I mean, we can play that game if you want. Let's suppose that if we look hard enough, that every opportunity has a cost.
"Oh, a free concert downtown on Saturday? And you can pick me up at 2? Yeah, I do really like that band, and I sure would like to go -- that's pretty exciting, thanks for the invite!
But instead of making plans with you right now, I'd rather tell you about all of the ways I could be using my time on that Saturday afternoon instead.
No, no. It's not that I don't want to go. I just want to really drive home the idea that there's an opportunity cost to attending, so it can't really be free -- it can't be a free show for you, or for me, or for anyone else that goes. It's important to me that you realize that this "free concert" is anything but free.
Listen, I don't know what you mean by "dead-ass loser." I'm just being a realist here!
Oh, so now you're saying that you're not going to pick me up on Saturday? Some friend you are! I haven't even fully amortized this yet!"
I think we're maybe gleefully posting past each other, but the point I'm trying to hit is that business models matter. Stack overflow provides a service. It's a good service. They host a great q&a platform for developers and myriad other category enthusiasts.
However, they have a business model. They are categorically different than eg Wikipedia. It's important to understand that.
This business model matters because it tells you what economic forces will lead them to do. When business models break down at public companies they commit acts of desperation. On an ad run site that will mean more ads, more invasive ads, etc.
As you're forced to sit through 30s unskippable ads on YouTube I hope you think "I'm so glad this is free"
Unironically, folks are being triggered by trigger warnings now.[1]
Imagine how “free” the beer in your hypothetical scenario is to an alcoholic struggling to stay sober.
Capitalism commoditizes even protest against it and repackages it as a product or service.
None of this is to assign blame to good faith actors in a so-called free market, nor is it to abdicate responsibility on behalf of so-called free agents. Just a counterpoint.
Now, suppose I walk up to a Budweiser-branded tent at a Budweiser festival that has a big sign with a Budweiser logo on it that says "FREE BEER", and I ask a person there who is wearing a Budweiser polo shirt, a Budweiser lanyard, and a Budweiser hat for a beer. They hand me a beer in a Budweiser-branded cup, and I go on my way. Was the beer free?
I think that both of these beers were free.