"the bulk of NFTs". Are you implying a majority of NFTs do this? If so, I don't think that's correct. At least it very much doesn't jive with my experience or the creators I know.
Yes it's definitely happening, and that obviously sucks, but I don't think it's as large scale of an issue as most people seem to think it is.
I'd argue it's the opposite. Having many right clickers around does the opposite of their intention, it gives the NFTs free marketing and exposure. More right clickers > more eyeballs on the NFT > more people intrigued enough to learn more.
A lot of people saying that this decision is because of adblockers, third party scripts, and future laws but...what if they just don't need third party ads anymore?
They've likely been collecting reader data for awhile and are probably at the point where they can spin up their own internal ad service.
For a site like the NY Times, pricing the ad space based on a user's historical data is a mug's game. NY Times has a reputation and value beyond the value of a user's browser history. Why would they want to compete with small nothing sites, giving a large percentage to adtech companies, when they can sell the premium service of being associated with the NY Times?
"We are the NY Times. If you want to advertise on our site you have to pay a premium."
"But we want to target ..."
"We are the NY Times. We have half a billion ARR. Take it or leave it."
That used to be how ads worked, and I think it is a better model - for both sides in many cases.
>An ad model that favors something like the NY Times can't be the better model.
It absolutely can, let me count the ways:
1. You are never, ever on a bad site - no matter how good Google et al are, bad things happen. If avoiding that matters, NY Times is a smart move.
2. You don't pay for the AdTech - everyone know who the NY Times readers are - is spending 40%-60% to overcome the problems of mass advertising better than splitting the difference with NY Times?
3. AdFraud - NY Times can charge rates and using methods that are more fraud resistant (e.g. get rid of CPM).
>if you have an approved extension with https://*/* permissions and active users, malware authors will offer to buy your extension for a very high price.
This is interesting, and I didn't realize this was a thing.
Are there any lists of extensions with these permissions, or ways that as an average consumer could easily audit my list of extensions for this?
I'm using Firefox and all I have to do to view permissions for an extension is to go to about:addons and click an extension, and there will be a "Permissions"-tab that lists what permissions this extension requests. It's similar in Google Chrome IIRC. Other than that, both browsers lists the permissions an extension requests when installing the extension, and further when the extension requests new permissions.
FB is publicly traded though, and it's pretty clear that controversial content keeps people engaged with the platform, and in turn engaging with ads.
FB has a fiduciary responsibility to make their platform show content that it's users with engage with the most, for the longest amount of time. If that happens to be controversial content, it's going to be difficult to convince them to change their algos to inherently downplay controversial content.
Not sure it's possible to make them change like that without government intervention. And even then, what change can one government impose vs a a massive global company like FB? (I actually don't know this, but would be interesting in learning from some examples if anyone has any)
Can't this be done using NLP, or even just pulling term frequency within content? I imagine FB (& whoever else has access to the data) has to be doing this on the backend somewhere for their own research.
We essentially need a Google (the framework which they use to algorithmically understand web content) for social networks with a front-end UI for topical mapping.
--
Also to add to your idea, I'd be very interested in a social network that can do that, but also requires real ID's and has some sort of public display of the topics that any user talks about and engages with often.
That way if I'm talking to someone I can gauge if they're really someone I want to be talking to about a particular topic. (can also be used to better map taste to reviews of products/services/companies/etc)
I think the key words here are "with some effort". Ultimately anything is potentially worth the price depending on the amount of effort a person is willing to dedicate to solving something vs having it "solved" for them.
Honestly, public & private FB groups. Groups dedicated around specific subjects (mostly related to my career) have been some of the most influential places for learning, networking, building relationships that I've been able to call on later.
FB groups are king because:
1. Everyone is already there.
2. It's tied to your real identity (for the most part).
Other areas to learn/network and ask dumb/advanced questions exist, but to "community" vibe in FB groups is unrivaled.
My FB feed is almost nothing but groups posts. I've hidden/unfriended most people I don't care about and no one I've kept really posts to their actual pages much these days anyway.
I really wish Groups was a separate app. I'd keep that and messenger.
I realize my privacy on fb, and likely around the whole web is the tradeoff for this but unfortunately that's what's required to stay on. The advancements I've made in my career and personal life directly & indirectly due to the FB groups I'm in are definitely worth it, and likely would not have happened without the existence of FB groups.
Absolutely agree about the importance of unfollowing all but the very highest signal/noise ratio friends, which includes very interesting posters, and certain family members for whom nothing should be missed!
Add to that some aggressive ad blocking, element zapping, prioritisation of the notification window over the news feed, and use of the basic mobile site [http://mbasic.facebook.com/] and you've got an actually pleasant experience.
Three great features of the basic site are i) predictable middle click behaviour of links, ii) no infinite scroll so you get a very clear indication of when you're about to do more than 'just glance at the top', iii) audio/video links are to raw media files .
Counterpoint — this depends on the area of interest and the people. That networking and being "anonymous" don't go well is not necessarily true always, and need not be true always. One can have a handle/username/name without revealing one's real name to everyone on Facebook, and yet reveal one's real name through other means (out of band communication) to specific people at specific times for specific needs.
Yes it's definitely happening, and that obviously sucks, but I don't think it's as large scale of an issue as most people seem to think it is.