> publishers saying that there’s an implicit agreement that they’ll give you lots of content for free Except that it's not free, the costs are obfuscated. Ther

> publishers saying that there’s an implicit agreement that they’ll give you lots of content for free Except that it's not free, the costs are obfuscated. There are people/entities earning revenues as a result of the ads/trackers/miners running on pages, and the money for these revenues surely is not created out of thin air, it comes from somewhere. If people were able to completely assess the (currently obfuscated) cost to them, they could make an informed decision about whether they rather skip the middle persons and pay themselves directly the content providers. > asking users to pay if they don’t want to see ads I am very skeptical of any claim that paywall = no ads/trackers/miners. Ad brokers will always push for their ads to be shown -- that's their job, and content providers will always be open to increase their sources of revenue regardless of whether they have a paywall or not. Edit: of course there are also the less obfuscated costs, like extra bandwidth, shorter battery-life, and other such inconveniences.