Yes, they’ll grumble about ads being annoying or YouTube blocking people who block ads, but the amount of power that gets wasted on this never even crosses anyone’s mind, meaning on some level, there exists agreement that advertisement are a necessary and responsible use of electricity while blockchains are not.

[–] calcopiritus@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

That's because ad serving doesn't set a lower bound on the electricity price. The value of crypto and the value of electricity are linked.

For the sake of simplicity I'll just say Bitcoin.

If the price of Bitcoin stays constant (big if), and the rate of Bitcoin per watt does too, then everyone would start mining until the demand for power is so high that the price increases until it's as high as the Bitcoin per watt.

Sure, they are unrealistic assumptions, but it's easier to see this way that the value of Bitcoin is (almost) the same as electricity. If it were lower, noone would mine it, if higher, people would buy electricity with bitcoin for a profit until the 2 equalize.

Electricity will never be much cheaper than Bitcoin, market forces will make sure of that, causing a huge environmental impact. Ads, however, only use as much electricity as they need to operate, their amount is not decided based on how much electricity they waste.

[–] MacNCheezus@lemmy.today -2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Honestly, it never fails to surprise me when on a presumable anticapitalist forum such as this one, someone makes a passionate argument in favor of some of the most ghastly corporate practices known to man, but sure, let's put that premise to the test, shall we?

Here's a good article on the power consumption of Bitcoin, which estimates around 110 TWh/yr.

Here's one on the electricity use of online advertising, which estimates somewhere between 6.5 GWh - 131 TWh/yr.

Shall we call it a draw? Keep in mind that online advertising is a fast growing industry (and likely to continue to grow in the future), whereas Bitcoin's power use isn't likely to grow too much, as the above article explains. Also keep in mind that this is JUST online advertising, and completely ignores print, TV, and those digital billboards that are spreading everywhere from Times Square to your local grocery store. Think about neon store signs, illuminated billboards, etc.

Also, that's just the cost of delivering ads to people (i.e. it doesn't even include the cost of producing them). Think about how many people work in advertising – all the offices they occupy, the computers, cameras, and whatever other equipment they use, business flights, what have you – and I'm pretty sure the carbon footprint of the entire industry far outstrips that of crypto.

But sure, crypto is the real problem.

[–] calcopiritus@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

I see you completely ignored my comment. The problem is not the amount of electricity used in itself, which the estimate of 6GWh-130TWh is as precise as shooting a dart at the moon.

Crypto uses energy for the sake of using energy. The value of crypto is based on the amount of energy used to create it. It's not valuable to society. That's what people is upset about. Crypto provides even less value to society than ads do.

Even you said it, ads spend energy because they employ people, those people generate value.

That's like saying we should stop heating homes because it consumes more energy than crypto mining. Hose heating improves the quality of life of people. Crypto does not.