Then the user would get paid for getting interrupted.<p>The user could configure the browser/email-client/social-network to not accept messages that didn't submit a fee above some amount.<p>It would set a market price for human attention. The price would be public and known live to anyone.<p>Ad-tech co's get 100% of advertising revenue. Users get 0%. This would flip it around so users would get 80%-100% and ad-tech co's 0-20%.<p>It would make LLMs/AI spam prohibitively expensive.
I don't know if you're familiar with the company AllAdvantage but in 1999 they tried to pay people by the hour to have a banner ad displayed on their computer, up to some number of hours per week.<p>One of their problems was that paying ad viewers directly incentivizes fraud. There were many apps to make it 'look' like you were engaged, while you actually weren't.<p>Similarly, in Bill Gates' book "The Road Ahead", he proposed the idea of emails that come with money attached to them. (i.e. You are paid to open and read advertisement e-mails.) I don't know if this was realistically tried anywhere.<p>Fraud aside, I think it's hard to avoid falling into one of two boxes in paying people to watch ads:<p>1. They pay so little that it's not really worth anyone's time.
2. They pay enough to be interesting, but it means people will view ads for products just for the money and the effectiveness of the ads will be very low.<p>I think the industry has found that the ad "tax" (i.e. ads in the middle of content) is the model that actually works. And in this model the bulk of the ads' cost is paid to the content creator who is in theory providing a good enough audience for that particular advertiser, which is the actual value to the advertiser.
This is almost exactly how free mobile games function these days. The business model works because it's printing its own currency, which is worth maybe 3 min of grind, instead of the real thing where it might be closer to $0.04.
That's technically how ads work in most places. You view ads instead of paying a fee. You see this in the context of free apps, free news articles, etc.
Users get services for free. If users didn’t value the ad Tech companies offerings, they wouldn’t use the service.<p>I’m not saying I like ad-tech. I use ad blockers, refuse to use any ad supported app that doesn’t have a method I can pay to remove ads, and I pay for ad free experiences for all of my streaming services and I pay to receive a number of ad free podcasts.<p>But let’s not pretend that users get nothing of value from Google or even Facebook.<p>On the other hand, I don’t hate myself enough to work for any ad tech company.
Websites usually give some value in exchange for displaying ads, but I’ve always thought that ads that offer no reciprocal value should at least be taxed for public benefit. Like billboards should help pay for the roads they’re on since they’re taking your attention (and arguably putting you in danger as a result) while giving nothing in return.
Many companies have tried and failed, some are still trying <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pay_to_surf" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pay_to_surf</a>
<p><pre><code> Then the user would get paid for getting interrupted.
</code></pre>
That's what the CONTENT is for.<p>The site is providing you content in exchange for eyes, then it's immediately trading those eyes for advertiser money.
I’ll admit this makes no sense to me.<p>How would a company like YouTube (or any ad-supported service) make money in this scenario? Does everything just become insta-paywalled?