this post was submitted on 29 Jun 2026
64 points (98.5% liked)

Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ

69628 readers
578 users here now

⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.

Rules • Full Version

1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy

2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote

3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs

4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others

Loot, Pillage, & Plunder

We heartily recommend visiting the free port of freemediaheckyeah (aka FMHY) while you sail the high seas, for all the freshest links the ocean has to offer.

📜 c/Piracy Wiki (Community Edition):

🏴‍☠️ Other communities

FUCK ADOBE!

Torrenting/P2P:

Gaming:

💰 Please help cover server costs.

Ko-Fi Liberapay
Ko-fi Liberapay

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com
Flatworm7591@lemmy.dbzer0.com
RandomLegend@lemmy.dbzer0.com
Andromxda@lemmy.dbzer0.com
CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com
tenchiken@lemmy.dbzer0.com
unruffled@anarchist.nexus
64
Ad-free streaming is a luxury now (www.theverge.com)
submitted 2 days ago by Gerald@discuss.tchncs.de to c/piracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
45 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Mordikan@kbin.earth 5 points 2 days ago (2 children)

So, a lot of people will quote reports that ads don't increase sales or anything, but that is technically wrong. It is wrong because they quote reports involving non-targeted advertisement which hasn't been widely used for 10-15+ years (since the rise of programmatic). Everything is targeted. Heavily.

These kind of ads are proven to increase sales and market share. So, that is why advertisers run them. The problem isn't the advertisers/demand platforms though (they are actually on your side). The problem is publisher/supply groups and the inherent nature of greed in people.

Example: Say I run a website. I make $X from running a banner ad at the top. Well, I have bills to pay, so I now run 2 ads. Well, why run 2 ads when I can run 5. Well, why run just 5 ads when I can put a video ad (higher CPM) floating to the side. Well, I have 6 ads on the site, why not make them refresh themselves every 5 seconds so they act as 12 ads. If I can keep them on the page long enough, I could make that 24 ads so let's spread out the content (like recipe sites). Why contact 1 demand platform when I can contact 10.

This is why websites suck and this is why they run like complete shit. It is to such a breaking point that advertisers implemented ads.txt files and schain verification systems. Advertisers don't want to show you 3 ads for Tide back to back to back. They have limited budgets and are trying to reach as many people as possible for their new soap or whatever. If you have a budget of $200, do you want to show 1 ad to 200 people or 20 ads to 10 people? Advertisers are now even starting to run frequency checks to determine if a user has already been served to prevent that shit from happening. But publishers will send bid requests to 10 other demand platforms to get around that.

TL;DR - Advertisers aren't the bad guy, Publishers are.

[–] TheFogan@programming.dev 2 points 2 days ago (2 children)

I mean in fairness, the models are the failures. Say you run a journalism site. You pay a good salary for the journalist, Then obviously they need researchers, maybe a legal expert to look over and make sure none of that opens you up to lawsuits etc... Then you've also got at least a bit of bandwidth etc...

So now you've got to weigh your options of which evil you need to actually make all those payments. Untargetted ads aren't even going to come close to breaking even. Everyone's going to riot and boycott if you dare to paywall it. tracking and targetted ads are also evil of course.

Now obviously there are some evils that decide "OK lets skip the research, lets let an AI write the articles, lets ramp up the tracking.... and then talk about if we can feasibly use a paywall without losing everyone.

But, even the most ethical company on earth has to make some choices, and there's a pretty set amount of evils necessary just to break even, and the worse part is, bringing costs down is also a pretty big evil as, most of those costs are what make it worth reading at all.

[–] delmain@beehaw.org 1 points 21 hours ago

I want to see something that works similar to (the way they claim) YouTube premium works.

Get a bunch of these journalism sites together and use a single sign on that catches what I actually view and pays out my single $5-10/month rate to the sites that I visit based on proportionality.

I realize that a privacy-focused community like this isn't going to love the idea of some company tracking all the news/journalism sites they visit, but it really does seem (to me) like the best way to balance the fact that these journalists deserve to get paid and also the fact that I'm not going to give even $2/month to 20+ different sites, just because I refuse to keep track of all of those.

I mean I guess there's always things like Patreon if those sites want to offer a like, $1-2 tier for full access, but they don't because they think their stuff is worth more.

[–] Mordikan@kbin.earth 3 points 1 day ago

This raises a good question: If a website's business model does not work and they do not even break even, should that company even exist? What purpose/content/utility is it providing that justifies it continuing?

And that's all websites. Even now the operating costs for this Lemmy instance and the Fediseer instance you are on and the Kbin instance I'm on is increasing just by us discussing this. Storage creep is a constant headache for the maintainers. It's an ever increasing bill even with caching or offloading to S3 buckets or whatever.

So, I totally get the needed evil idea and it's not wrong.