undefined | Better HN

0 pointskergonath3y ago0 comments

> So, an end to social media companies that are actively hostile to their users? No more psychologically deceptive tactics to force engagement at any cost? No more ad tracking? An end to foreign spam accounts?

We pay for TVs (the physical objects), and most of them are still riddled with ads. They will double dip if they can. The reasoning won’t be “if we charge them this much we can drop ads and not lose money”, it will be “if we charge them this much we can have it on top of however much we are doing with ads”.

0 comments

Nextgrid3y ago

> They will double dip if they can

If they can, yes. But it will now open them to competition.

Not to mention, if the law is structured in such a way that advertising-based business models remove their (UK equivalent) of Section 230 while purely fee-based models don't (as you'd assume fee-based models benefit equally from any content, where as ad-based models benefit from certain content more than other) then they can't double-dip since the extra liability will wipe out any advertising profits.

com2kid3y ago

That is because the price of TVs has been dropping while the # of features (and sizes of the TVs) have been increasing.

Modern smart TVs are subsidized to heck and back.

You can actually get smart TVs w/o lots of ads, Sony's Android TVs give you a slew of opt-out options when you first turn them on.

Roku is the worst about this, they show ads to customers and try to collect $ from the streaming platforms.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse