Item — HN Reader

The whole article could have been replaced with the line "I changed my mind about advertising because I now make money from advertising". The fact that the author feels compelled to spin it out to a 480 word article suggests some deep-rooted unease with this, and also illustrates one of the (many) issues with an advertising-based revenue model - you have to learn to waste users time (aka "maximise for engagement") to maximise revenue.

Digging a little deeper, the fact that 10% of forwarded emails are sponsored[0] highlights another major issue with advertising - the conflict of interest between user needs and site operator's profit. How do I know which emails I can trust as having useful unbiased information (i.e. satisfying my needs), and which are potentially misleading junk adverts (i.e. satisfying the site operator's desire for profit)? And what is to stop the signal to noise ratio becoming completely untenable over time in the desire to maximise profit?

I'm not completely anti-advertising BTW - there is a time and place for it. Just not when you are trying to use informational sites on the web. The analogy I've used is that you don't want annoying salespeople in a library getting between you and your books, but you don't mind them so much when you are down the high street shopping.

[0] https://silken-cafe-474.notion.site/About-The-Sample-a989b5b...

1 comments

> The whole article could have been replaced with the line "I changed my mind about advertising because I now make money from advertising".

I responded to this sentiment in another comment, but I'll just quote from the HN guidelines here: "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."[1]

> How do I know which emails I can trust as having useful unbiased information (i.e. satisfying my needs), and which are potentially misleading junk adverts (i.e. satisfying the site operator's desire for profit)?

Because ads are clearly marked with a "sponsored" label.

> And what is to stop the signal to noise ratio becoming completely untenable over time in the desire to maximise profit?

Because if we send people newsletters they don't like, they'll be more likely to stop using the service.

> the conflict of interest between user needs and site operator's profit.

Interesting anecdote: I haven't measured this in a while, but at least when we first introduced ads, the sponsored newsletters tended to be rated more highly than the "organic" newsletters.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

>> How do I know which emails I can trust as having useful unbiased information (i.e. satisfying my needs), and which are potentially misleading junk adverts (i.e. satisfying the site operator's desire for profit)?

> Because ads are clearly marked with a "sponsored" label.

You've already demonstrated that you're willing to go back on previously held principles and commitments for profit. Why stop with just putting in ads? Why not stop marking ads with a sponsored label? Why not include a cryptominer payload? And why should anyone believe you when you say you won't?