3 ms·

I agree there is value in making useful information available to people who can't afford it. I don't think advertising is the only way or even the best way to m

by imgabe 11y ago

I agree there is value in making useful information available to people who can't afford it. I don't think advertising is the only way or even the best way to make this happen. We used to consider this such a valuable endeavor that we had whole institutions dedicated to making information available for free, without ads. They were called "libraries".

icebraining 11y ago
I also agree that ads aren't the only or best way to make it happen. But they are the existing way. It's well known what tends to happen when structures are eliminated with promises of better tomorrows.
- imgabe 11y ago
  It's been "the existing way" for only 20-30 years. Before that we had newspapers, libraries, town criers, monks copying manuscripts by hand, phone trees, who knows what else. A webpage with an ad is hardly the only available means of disseminating information. There are other options even right now with donation supported sites, sites supported by sales of affiliated merchandise, manufacturer websites with product data, and so on.
  - icebraining 11y ago
    "Let them eat newspapers"? We're not talking about a return to the past; we're talking about a two tier system, where the good information will be served with all the speed and amenities of the web to those who can afford it. Having other means of disseminating the information is irrelevant, because the real money will come from the paywalled sites. It's the JSTOR model, now for all the information. And what I'm saying is not "let's keep the current model"; all I want is to urge the anti-ad advocates to at least acknowledge the issue -which is real- instead of brushing it off as only affecting Buzzfeed and the likes, and to come up with a better answer than "manufacturers will still publish their product data", as if that covered the important information we're talking about.

by imgabe 11y ago

icebraining 11y ago

I also agree that ads aren't the only or best way to make it happen. But they are the existing way. It's well known what tends to happen when structures are eliminated with promises of better tomorrows.

imgabe 11y ago
It's been "the existing way" for only 20-30 years. Before that we had newspapers, libraries, town criers, monks copying manuscripts by hand, phone trees, who knows what else. A webpage with an ad is hardly the only available means of disseminating information. There are other options even right now with donation supported sites, sites supported by sales of affiliated merchandise, manufacturer websites with product data, and so on.
- icebraining 11y ago
  "Let them eat newspapers"? We're not talking about a return to the past; we're talking about a two tier system, where the good information will be served with all the speed and amenities of the web to those who can afford it. Having other means of disseminating the information is irrelevant, because the real money will come from the paywalled sites. It's the JSTOR model, now for all the information. And what I'm saying is not "let's keep the current model"; all I want is to urge the anti-ad advocates to at least acknowledge the issue -which is real- instead of brushing it off as only affecting Buzzfeed and the likes, and to come up with a better answer than "manufacturers will still publish their product data", as if that covered the important information we're talking about.