4 ms·
I remember a time on the Internet before ads, when the only websites were made by geeks who were passionate about the topic. Then came the popup ads, followed b
by JDDunn9 11y ago
I remember a time on the Internet before ads, when the only websites were made by geeks who were passionate about the topic. Then came the popup ads, followed by the popup blockers, banners never worked, then came contextual ads. Google made it quick and easy to profit from content and made content a commodity. Currently they are the #1 financier of web spam, and pay off ad-blockers to whitelist their ads.
There's no such thing as a free lunch. Ad-supported media is not free, it's costs are simply externalised. While we, the tech-savvy, may not click ads, somebody is buying those payday loans, lose 30 lbs in a month with this weird trick, get-rich-quick scams.
I'm more than happy to see ad-financed (mostly low-quality) content go the way of the popup. I have no problem paying for quality content (Netflix, Hulu Plus, Audible, etc.). The few high quality ad-supported blogs will then be able to charge for their content, since there will be no decent alternatives. As long as ad-supported content exists though, it will be a race to the bottom.
- sologoub 11y agoWhat you are describing is a world where only big, well financed, or well known entities can survive. In order to keep the amazing internet we actually have, we need to come up with a model that can be used by small upstarts to either serve smaller markets or to give them time to figure things out and become large over time. Requiring people to publish things for free will only result in the most extreme of views. Look at any Wikipedia article that remotely touches a controversial topic - it will likely present a strongly biased message towards whatever side the maintainer of that article feels strongly about.
- JDDunn9 11y agoThe world where only the big players can win is the one we live in now. It's difficult for a small player to be heard when Buzzfeed-type click-bate headlines dominate the landscape. Switch it around, who would pay for access to Buzzfeed? On the other hand, I would pay for an expert's opinion on a topic I'm passionate about. You only need 1,000 people paying $10 a month to make a good living. To get $120k from ads, you'll need a whole lot of visitors.
- icebraining 11y agoBut Buzzfeed et all will survive, since their content is already ads itself (see "native advertising"). And $10/month is a tremendous amount. Follow 10 sites and you've spent 1/10 of the average wage in my European country, and more than 1/6 of the minimum wage. It'll only lead to a balkanization of the web, with good sites pricing for wealthy American and northern European visitors, and everyone else being left out.
- Falkon1313 11y agoThere was a web before commercialization (and an internet before that) where people published things for free. There are still topics that people are interested in and thoughts that they want to share and discuss. You just don't notice it now because it's all drowned out by ad-financed clickbait and ads themselves being reposted, reblogged, retweeted, etc. You don't even realize that there is a free signal because of the all the commercial noise. People still publish personal blogs, comments, threads in forums, free software, help for other people, articles and data, etc. without getting paid for it.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- bad_user 11y ago> I have no problem paying for quality content (Netflix, Hulu Plus, Audible, etc.) Funny that you mention that. Netflix and Hulu are not available in my country and my country is in the EU. As an american, you may not realize it, but paywalls are going to lead to a balkanization of the Internet, a process that is well on its way to being a reality.