> That's honestly fine - if people won't pay in time or by viewing ads, the content is simply not valuable enough to enough people for it to exist. Nonsense. T

> That's honestly fine - if people won't pay in time or by viewing ads, the content is simply not valuable enough to enough people for it to exist. Nonsense. That argument means all content is valued only by the numbers of ads viewed. By that logic Facebook is the best content. And they don't have to change by the sheer volume of people that visit it. Competition becomes even more unlikely because nobody wants to invest in a business that needs to millions of viewers to be profitable. > Less content is not the end of the world. Nor is it necessarily a good thing. Fewer options will just empower the organizations that happened to exist in the heyday of advertising. Converging power more and more while saying "it's a good thing, the market will right itself" is naive.