Hacker Read

pbalau · 2016-01-03 11:22:07

Let me ask you a question: the Free Basics is targeted to people that can't afford another way to get internet. What will showing ads to these people accomplish?

thomastjeffery | karma 6301 | avg karma 2.07 · | 2024-02-26 14:13:14

That's not what free means.

It's cool until you realize that it only exists to take advantage of poor people.

If the infrastructure cost was actually important, then they wouldn't serve ads in the first place.

reply

placeybordeaux | karma 1495 | avg karma 2.25 · | 2017-05-01 18:49:38+00:00

I'd argue that's not to funnel use into a product that maintains market share through the network effect. That's the thing that made the free basics program so pernicious. What you are describe is just providing a poor service, rather than a service that is specifically tailored to stamp out competition.

moltar | karma 1989 | avg karma 1.64 · | 2022-03-09 17:26:05

Maybe they want to offer free service, but monetized by ads?

revorad | karma 20720 | avg karma 5.37 · | 2011-07-01 07:37:50+00:00

To sell more ads. That's the answer for why most things online are free.

megaman821 | karma 3069 | avg karma 2.7 · | 2020-12-14 15:25:40+00:00

Taking away that "free stuff" is not without consequence either. Now people without means can't read the news, watch tv, connect with friends and family online, play casual games, etc. Are ads more evil than taking away free access for those without the means to pay?

Workaccount2 | karma 8160 | avg karma 3.6 · | 2024-06-11 14:44:37

A large subset of those will choose free+ads with ad-block, so free+free.

Then they will complain that the internet is full of trash content that doesn't suite them.

reply

kyllo | karma 4278 | avg karma 2.57 · | 2014-02-20 06:56:02+00:00

Of course it isn't free, but that's why there are ads on it.

matt4077 | karma 12676 | avg karma 3.15 · | 2018-09-30 19:52:21+00:00

People willing (and able) to pay $50/y for this have the unfortunate correlating characteristic of being far more valuable as advertising targets than the average person.

In other words: If you are willing to give me $50 for ad-free internet, that's going to cost you $100. And so on...

reply

dmortin | karma 1319 | avg karma 2.46 · | 2021-03-31 08:23:53+00:00

Most people want things for free. If you asked them if they want free access with ads or paid access without ads I guess most of them would choose the first option.

robjan | karma 3415 | avg karma 2.55 · | 2023-05-05 10:47:30

In this case it's the service provider. You are consuming a free service, which costs money to run, in return for adverts

kd5bjo | karma 4062 | avg karma 3.13 · | 2019-06-06 06:30:20+00:00

But in monetary terms, what do these “free” services cost to various populations? The advertisers believe that paying for the service is turning them a profit, so someone is paying more for the advertised products than they used to. Is this a case of people with disposable income subsidizing everyone else, or one of manipulating vulnerable populations to spend their money unwisely?

anoncake | karma 1589 | avg karma 0.5 · | 2020-09-12 08:41:36+00:00

1. That's giving in to extortion. You don't pay for the service (which is free), you pay for not being subjected to ads.

2. It doesn't work in the long-term. Paying just signals that you have disposable income and showing subjecting you to ads will be profitable.

reply

programminggeek | karma 5207 | avg karma 3.32 · | 2013-10-29 02:21:47

No, it means that some people are cheap and companies like Google have trained them that everything should be free and/or ad supported.

Thorrez | karma 5756 | avg karma 1.92 · | 2023-05-23 17:45:00

>Advertising based 'free' things cost you far more than a subscription ever would.

Let's say someone watches 1 YouTube video per month. Is it worth it to buy YouTube premium at $12/month? What if that person makes minimum wage in the US? What if that person makes the global median wage: $227/month? Free advertising-supported things provide web resources that the poor wouldn't otherwise be able to afford.

Disclosure: I work at Google.

reply

givan | karma 2169 | avg karma 3.11 · | 2014-05-19 06:46:26+00:00

People will pay for things that they will really need, advertising/freemium is used for all the things that we don't really need.

richardw | karma 3457 | avg karma 2.33 · | 2019-09-17 05:37:35+00:00

One good thing about advertising is that it allows the poorest free access to most content. Hopefully these initiatives will keep that.

fermienrico | karma 4471 | avg karma 3.99 · | 2018-10-09 22:25:32+00:00

It’s sad that internet is all free but an average American is OK with spending $105/month on a cable package and STILL be targeted with ads.

What a world we live in. The problem is not that average person doesn’t have money, the problem is that these advertising giants have gotten people to expect that online services should be free (but in exchange for privacy).

reply

enitihas | karma 2811 | avg karma 3.45 · | 2015-12-22 12:50:22+00:00

I am not assuming anything. People who don't have internt access are not using those service anyways. So those services will continue at their natural pace. So I don't see how free basics will harm the development of independent services. Regarding Orkut, it had a lot of users before facebook arrived on the scene. But Facebook was just so much better that everyone eventually jumped on it. I doubt the outcome would have been any different had Orkut been free, considering that the network effect was a huge price in itself. The point is, I am yet to see anyone who can afford a monthly data pack interested in choosing a service based upon it's inclusion in free basics. Free basics is good for those who won't use the internet at all otherwise.

londons_explore | karma 35497 | avg karma 2.72 · | 2023-05-15 15:13:11

And those poorer people aren't very valuable to advertisers, since they have far less money to spend on frivolous extras, so it's hard to run 'free stuff' services like this.