As outlined in his article, there are both pros and cons to the advertising revenue model that the internet runs on today. As engrained and generally disdained it is, the model did have well-intentioned roots. The hyper-personalization of ad content on different platforms does lead to more relevant suggestions; however, it also exacerbates phenomena such as echo chambers and polarization. This is seen notably in more serious cases of content differentiation that permeates throughout different platforms — an example given about the perils of overpersonalization was encapsulated in Gilad Lotan’s study of media consumption regarding the Israel and Palestine situation, in which participants consume “personalized propaganda” based off of their existing views and preferences. This serves to worsen existing biases and divisions in society and across groups. Additionally, superficial effects include the prevalence of clickbait and the necessity of sensationalization, especially across media, which toes an already-thinning line between fake news and reality, and can only become more dangerous as time goes on.
On the contrary, there are some benefits of an ad-based revenue model that powers the internet as we know it today. One pro is the normalization of the internet across industries — many industries that may have taken longer to join the web instead took to it earlier to join existing entities. Additionally, perhaps paradoxically, an ad-backed system online better protects privacy than a transactional one because ads don’t necessarily target the actual identity user of the user and rather the relevant content. Lastly, ad-backed web is indicative of an open ecosystem where the web is open to everyone.
Broadly, the content of the ads themselves could be triggering. For example, if I recieve a Weight-Watchers ad, I might feel emotionally targeted because I have terrible body dysmorphia and don’t need my ads coming for me like that.
