3 ms·
I see this is a lost cause on you. You're not willing to see (willfully or obliviously) that the content provider gets a say in all this as well, since they fo
by sbarre 11y ago
I see this is a lost cause on you. You're not willing to see (willfully or obliviously) that the content provider gets a say in all this as well, since they foot the bill for producing the content you are consuming.
Yet you are somehow surprised or insulted when they argue you should not have a say (which is your exact argument but in reverse), and that you should be 100% in control of how you consume their content, regardless of whether or not it contradicts the business model they've chosen to implement.
The correct approach should be to not consume their content if you don't like how it's being delivered.
- Nadya 11y ago>The correct approach should be to not consume their content if you don't like how it's being delivered. Now they have 0 consumers as ad-blocking numbers increase. They lose revenue and go out of business due to a bad business model. The correct approach would be for them to find a sustainable business model. Your "correct approach" puts them out of business.
- AnimalMuppet 11y agoBut your approach makes the ads worthless (because nobody views them), and they still go out of business. Of course, you don't claim that your approach keeps them in business...
- Nadya 11y agoMy use of an adblocker is not an "approach" to the problem. My suggested approach is to find a sustainable business model, which could keep them in business. The business model is their problem - not mine. Even if I'm the cause of why their business model is failing, it's not my problem to solve. Companies with better business models will eventually replace the companies that go out of business. If an ad-supported site goes offline, I do not care. A site with similar content and a more sustainable business model will replace them. If their content was valued enough - a donation funded site will replace it.