> It only applies to Google's ad network. Mass adoption of Contributor would have the knock-on effect of strengthening Google's advertising position.

A trend toward mass adoption of Contributor would pressure competing ad networks to develop similar systems with better UX (competing contributor-like systems might encourage ad networks other than the strongest one to work out exchange agreements to improve the UX and reach.)

> It installs a third party as a middleman, when only agreed-upon social and networking protocols are truly requisite. If Contributor were to take off, we run the risk of paying rent to Google for web-view transactions

You're already paying rent to advertising networks who pass on a portion to the content sites, its just that that rent is in the form of compromises to the format, delivery, and presentation of the content in order to fit ads in, rather than direct cash payments. Contributor (and any similar schemes) seek to transition that to direct cash payments, reducing the number of extraneous players involved (with ads, you have ad network + actual advertisers, with Contributor you just have the "ad" network.)

Is there any way to unblock enough to allow contributor to work, but still block any actual ads? I'm not willing to fully unblock it unless they will promise that I will see zero ads.

>> It installs a third party as a middleman... paying rent to Google...

I'm not sure that it is rent in the economic sense. They're providing one place to sign up and pay, and then distributing the money in a reasonably fair way. That's actually a valuable service.

I find that there are a lot of sites that I visit infrequently enough that I don't want/need to sign up for their service, but I still like to see the occasional article. For example, I read Economist articles when I see them linked. I don't want a full-on subscription, or even go through the hassle of creating an account, but if Google can throw them some cash on my behalf I'd be happy about that.

IIRC, the problem with a lot of micropayment schemes was that they never got big enough for critical mass. Perhaps Google has managed to do that by way of ads, and maybe they'll develop into what those schemes always wanted to be.

Thanks for the rational reply. Some of the cynical and critical comments here strike me as far too idealistic. This seems like a completely reasonable step to take in offering websites money for ad-free content without having to subscribe to individual content.

The privacy argument, I can easier get on board with. Why does Google need to still track you if you're not seeing ads? Wasn't the point of ad tracking to get you more relevant ads, help advertisers with remarketing, etc. ?

They need to track you to associate your contributor account with your browsing.

Well,

1) contributor doesn't always replace /all/ ads,

2) if you were ever to say, stop paying for Contributor...

3) in order to see what sites ad spots paid for with contributor?

Edit: "We use machine learning to pace how much of your plan is spent each day."

I would add another shortcoming: Contributor is owned by an ad network.

Perhaps I'm biased (Googler), but I'm not so worried about rent. If Contributor is successful enough, it proves the market, competitors will become interested, and other micropayment schemes probably have a better chance.

If it fails then we're back to square one where most large websites get most of their revenue from ads.