You would rather watch an ad than pay to see a video, right?
Well, maybe. It's actually hard to tell. My sister would think so, and she would be wrong.
There's *a lot* of money flowing around in the ad economy, and it has to be someone's money. It's not all marketing failures. Users are investing enough money in advertised products that just a share of it is enough to generate hundred of billions.
It's hard to directly assign a bought product to an ad.
You can still try though. Look at someone's clothing budget before and after a Shein or Vinted campaign. I actually forgot the specific numbers, but I remember it spiking by around 80€ per month on average.
80€ per month to swipe through shitposts. TikTok doesn't need that much, she's paying for two actors here. Paying TikTok directly wouldn't cost much more than a Netflix subscription.
Anyways, what I mean is that the whole trick is to make vulnerable people pay for the others. They won't see their own vulnerability, and when they do they won't talk about it, so nobody will complain.
An unfortunate side effect is massive pollution.
Producing new pants everytime you want to give 5€ to your social media isn't exactly an efficient way of doing things.
---
Honestly? At this point, half of the point of an adblocker is to fuck with the ad economy.
qwel[]e.email