Pay humans to engage in ads, not LinkedIn

(nexertise.com)

3 points | by izzygottlieb 4 hours ago ago

7 comments

  • eutropia 12 minutes ago ago

    I think you'd still get fraud, for example I'm just imagining some reddit degens sharing the comprehension answers on a wiki or discord so people can skip the time commitment of reading the thing and instead grind as many as possible with cheatsheets while watching youtube or something.

    Imagine any avenue students use to cheat at classes and I think many of them apply to this system.

  • izzygottlieb 4 hours ago ago

    Hot take, if you pay platforms like LinkedIn and X for your ads, they will turn a blind eye on the $63B a year ad fraud. Because they will lose billions. If you pay the "humans" directly there's no "conflict of interest". Companies get human attention, and humans get money for their time.

    • PaulHoule 4 hours ago ago

      Might not be quality attention though.

      Could revolutionize HN which is currently flooded with people who desperately want attention for things that don't deserve it.

      • izzygottlieb 4 hours ago ago

        If you verify every human, to not be a bot, and to be reputable (e.g. employee at Google) vs. trusting LinkedIn to show your ads to those same people to want to target. The math is in the formers favor. Quality cannot be much more degraded than the current Pay-per-click solution of today, specially with LLMs crawling the web like never before.

        • izzygottlieb 4 hours ago ago

          If a human proved attention (via comprehension check, LLM detection, feedback etc.), compared to the alternative of just paying $5-$15 on LinkedIn for just a CLICK! The choice is a no-brainer.

        • apothegm 3 hours ago ago

          And how exactly are you proposing to verify that users are human?