The government has agreed to proposals that would allow Australians to opt out of targeted advertising, require search engines to "de-index" certain information about them, and draw small businesses into Australia's privacy scheme.
Youâve pretty much answered your own question - the alternative model is simply no-fee, frictionless, convenient, secure, micro-payments.
No, Iâve explained why such a system is unable to solve the problem better than advertising can. Or to be more precise, Iâve explained the criteria that a successful system would need to meet. Criteria no system Iâm familiar with has met.
Iâm truly loathe to say this as I despise everything about crypto, but this is a problem that crypto could address.
Crypto certainly could be used to deliver the system you propose. Such a system actually exists. The Basic Attention Token; perhaps other implementations of the same idea. I think itâs a great idea in theory, but itâs been around for over half a decade now and hasnât taken off. Because consumer interest isnât there; because the website interest isnât there; because itâs impractical to make work in a way that actually improves user experience. It doesnât really matter what the reason is, the fact is it hasnât worked, and if youâre proposing an alternative to advertising, it needs to be one that people can get on board with, and a proven failed system clearly isnât the answer, as much as I might like it to be.
More to the point though, I worry that such a system, even with those low payments, would put an undue burden on the finances of those who can least afford it. The Internet has been an incredible democractising force, allowing people from all over the world and all walks of life to create content and share their experiences, and view that of others. To cut too many off entirely would be a great shame. And frankly I get a little uneasy even with the idea of some people being able to pay to remove ads. It would create two classes of people, those who must pay with their data, and those who can afford not to. Iâm not necessarily saying it would be wrong to allow some people to pay to remove advertising fwiw, just noting that itâs an uncomfortable issue that should be carefully considered, not necessarily just taken as a given.
Also fwiw, I see no reason that it should need to be tied to crypto. Whatever software is needed to interpret that the token has been paid could just as easily ensure a centralised server has registered a microtransaction. From how youâve described it I actually think Iâm in principle less against crypto than you are (in the sense that I think the cast majority of its most publicised use has been as a tool for scams and grifts, but I donât believe it necessarily has to be that way, and Iâm very open to the idea of legitimate uses, even if I donât yet think Iâve seen any), but I just donât see what advantages it would have for this purpose over centralised architecture.
I think youâre looking at this UN a âhow can we fix thingsâ way while my comments are more idealistic. If advertising never existed, then something like the micropsyment platform I mentioned would have coalesced to find content.
As this are - thereâs probably no pathway from the current status quo to my proposed idealist utopia.
Yeah thatâs fair. I was being rather clumsy with my wording, and sort of doing a bit of both the pragmatic and idealistic approach, without clearly distinguishing when I was doing which. I think idealistically thereâs a lot of good to be said for the micropayment system, but itâs not necessarily as much of a clear-cut good as you suggest. There are still equity issues at play as described above. There are also practical questions. Would every single site charge precisely the same amount? Would it be per page view or per user? Per page but with a cap on monthly spend per user? All this could be addressed of course, but would either create an equity issue distinct from the above-mentioned one, or would create awkward UX interactions for the user to manage their expenditure. Ads have the benefit of being both completely equitable and dead simple.
No, Iâve explained why such a system is unable to solve the problem better than advertising can. Or to be more precise, Iâve explained the criteria that a successful system would need to meet. Criteria no system Iâm familiar with has met.
Crypto certainly could be used to deliver the system you propose. Such a system actually exists. The Basic Attention Token; perhaps other implementations of the same idea. I think itâs a great idea in theory, but itâs been around for over half a decade now and hasnât taken off. Because consumer interest isnât there; because the website interest isnât there; because itâs impractical to make work in a way that actually improves user experience. It doesnât really matter what the reason is, the fact is it hasnât worked, and if youâre proposing an alternative to advertising, it needs to be one that people can get on board with, and a proven failed system clearly isnât the answer, as much as I might like it to be.
More to the point though, I worry that such a system, even with those low payments, would put an undue burden on the finances of those who can least afford it. The Internet has been an incredible democractising force, allowing people from all over the world and all walks of life to create content and share their experiences, and view that of others. To cut too many off entirely would be a great shame. And frankly I get a little uneasy even with the idea of some people being able to pay to remove ads. It would create two classes of people, those who must pay with their data, and those who can afford not to. Iâm not necessarily saying it would be wrong to allow some people to pay to remove advertising fwiw, just noting that itâs an uncomfortable issue that should be carefully considered, not necessarily just taken as a given.
Also fwiw, I see no reason that it should need to be tied to crypto. Whatever software is needed to interpret that the token has been paid could just as easily ensure a centralised server has registered a microtransaction. From how youâve described it I actually think Iâm in principle less against crypto than you are (in the sense that I think the cast majority of its most publicised use has been as a tool for scams and grifts, but I donât believe it necessarily has to be that way, and Iâm very open to the idea of legitimate uses, even if I donât yet think Iâve seen any), but I just donât see what advantages it would have for this purpose over centralised architecture.
I think youâre looking at this UN a âhow can we fix thingsâ way while my comments are more idealistic. If advertising never existed, then something like the micropsyment platform I mentioned would have coalesced to find content.
As this are - thereâs probably no pathway from the current status quo to my proposed idealist utopia.
Yeah thatâs fair. I was being rather clumsy with my wording, and sort of doing a bit of both the pragmatic and idealistic approach, without clearly distinguishing when I was doing which. I think idealistically thereâs a lot of good to be said for the micropayment system, but itâs not necessarily as much of a clear-cut good as you suggest. There are still equity issues at play as described above. There are also practical questions. Would every single site charge precisely the same amount? Would it be per page view or per user? Per page but with a cap on monthly spend per user? All this could be addressed of course, but would either create an equity issue distinct from the above-mentioned one, or would create awkward UX interactions for the user to manage their expenditure. Ads have the benefit of being both completely equitable and dead simple.