6 ms·

Ahh yes. Another "ads are bad" post. People always seem to forget that most of the Internet is free BECAUSE of ads.

by js4 11y ago

nononoxd 11y ago
I know. But I'd like to have an internet with donations, not ads.
- mei0Iesh 11y ago
  Not me. Donations are a much worse business model to me than ads. With ads, I offer free information they want, and free information about unrelated products and services they may or may not want. Either way they get something free, and I get money without owing anyone anything. With donations, I'm offering free information, that they're really supposed to pay for, but instead of just asking for the money as an exchange, I rely on the goodness of their heart, or guilting them into feeling bad and owing me. Then they pay, but the information was already free, so they're not actually paying for it, instead they're paying for the smugness of being one of the few that actually paid what they owed, and I become the charity case in their eyes, and they are disappointed if they're not rewarded for their good deed. They expect me to do something, give them some feedback, either by personally thanking them, or posting on the website how great they are for donating. Either way, I owe them, they owe me, and it's all in this fuzzy emotional space that's outside the actual exchange of information and costs of hardware and networking. I hate donations. I tried them once, and where I would've made $100 per day, I'd be lucky if I got $1 per day, maybe even $1 per week it was that low. Because I don't want to have a "family". I don't want charity. I refunded donations and put ads back up. Ads are what people want. Nobody wants to pay directly, and nobody wants to be guilted and in debt. The people who donate are doing it for other purposes than paying for nothing. They want something out of it, and I don't want to give them it. Go ahead and block ads. So what. They aren't for everyone. Then you get free information, donated to you by the people who like ads and support those who pay to advertise, and the businesses who take the risk in paying to have their name part of your site. People love ads, even those who block them.
- manigandham 11y ago
  People don't like to pay when they can get things for free. This is human behavior. Donations are also not reliable or viable for a real business. You're not going to change human behavior so donations instead of ads means 99% of the content out there disappears.
Spivak 11y ago
If your websites serve ads then by definition your content isn't free. As long as you believe that ads actually work and influence people then you are imposing a cost on your users. There are websites which are actually free to end users. They don't serve ads, they might have a donation page, and largely exist because the operator simply wants to publish something. Most of the 'old web' embodies these qualities. The assumption that the only way for websites to make money is via ads or paywalls is completely pervasive and it's simply not true. These two options are the most naive monetization strategies. My favorite counterexample is the Welcome to Nightvale Podcast. Their podcast is gratis and without ads. They make money through donations, selling swag, their book, and by performing live shows -- all which sell out extremely fast because I've been trying to get tickets recently. The Internet is quite expensive because of ads.
- jack9 11y ago
  > If your websites serve ads then by definition your content isn't free It's still free. You choose to access an API, whatever that may be. You don't get to decide what the format is and you don't get to decide what the content (the ads are content in the HTML) is. > The assumption that the only way for websites to make money is via ads or paywalls is completely pervasive and it's simply not true. You are lumping all websites together, which is unhelpful. A tumblr page vs Apple.com. How you measure profitable is not cut and dry. Google's search isn't profitable, but the reselling of data and injection of data side is. Just because you have an agenda, doesn't mean the ecosystem matches your ideal wishes. The internet itself transmits VAST (pun!) amounts of data and ads are a small portion of that compared to say...video. 300 Hours of Video Uploaded to YouTube Every Minute. How much of that are ads? It's about 2 hours. The internet is not expensive because of ads. They sit nicely on top of it, which is part of why they are tolerated.
  - Spivak 11y ago
    > It's still free. You choose to access an API, whatever that may be. You don't get to decide what the format is and you don't get to decide what the content (the ads are content in the HTML) is. That's a silly definition of free because it's too narrow. Imagine a website that required you to move your mouse in a circle for a minute before it allowed you to access the content. Would you argue that the website is still free? Is your time not valuable? > You are lumping all websites together, which is unhelpful. A tumblr page vs Apple.com. How you measure profitable is not cut and dry. Right, I'm trying to consider a website as part of a larger business which has far more monetization opportunities than if we demand that the literal website must be independently profitable.
myhf 11y ago
The internet is free because of commerce. Pages are large and slow because merchants have no mechanism (other than ads) for transmitting money to where the costs are incurred.
PhasmaFelis 11y ago
The author addresses that. It would be really nice if you would finish reading the first page before the snarky comments.
jjaredsimpson 11y ago
Most internet content is garbage designed to maximize ad revenue. If it went away nothing of value is lost. Magazines also are affordable because of ads. Most magazines are pure trash I would never read.
- manigandham 11y ago
  I don't get your point here. Nothing has taken away your choice on what to read. If you don't find it interesting, just move on. Value is inherently subjective - so a statement that "nothing of value is lost" does not mean much. I certainly don't find celebrity gossip very valuable but the vast amount of people who read and consume that content shows that it is valuable to them. Who am I to judge that? There's nothing good to come of vastly reducing the amount of content out there. More choice and options are always a good thing.
pdkl95 11y ago
1) We didn't "forget". It's a bad idea to pretending people that disagree with you are uninformed or stupid. 2) Ads only created part of the internet. Insisting otherwise only makes you willfully ignorant. 3) Welcome to capitalism. Websites will get to find out their true value. I look forward to a lot of worthless junk going away.

Ahh yes. Another "ads are bad" post. People always seem to forget that most of the Internet is free BECAUSE of ads.

by js4 11y ago

Ahh yes. Another "ads are bad" post. People always seem to forget that most of the Internet is free BECAUSE of ads.

nononoxd 11y ago

I know. But I'd like to have an internet with donations, not ads.

mei0Iesh 11y ago
Not me. Donations are a much worse business model to me than ads. With ads, I offer free information they want, and free information about unrelated products and services they may or may not want. Either way they get something free, and I get money without owing anyone anything. With donations, I'm offering free information, that they're really supposed to pay for, but instead of just asking for the money as an exchange, I rely on the goodness of their heart, or guilting them into feeling bad and owing me. Then they pay, but the information was already free, so they're not actually paying for it, instead they're paying for the smugness of being one of the few that actually paid what they owed, and I become the charity case in their eyes, and they are disappointed if they're not rewarded for their good deed. They expect me to do something, give them some feedback, either by personally thanking them, or posting on the website how great they are for donating. Either way, I owe them, they owe me, and it's all in this fuzzy emotional space that's outside the actual exchange of information and costs of hardware and networking. I hate donations. I tried them once, and where I would've made $100 per day, I'd be lucky if I got $1 per day, maybe even $1 per week it was that low. Because I don't want to have a "family". I don't want charity. I refunded donations and put ads back up. Ads are what people want. Nobody wants to pay directly, and nobody wants to be guilted and in debt. The people who donate are doing it for other purposes than paying for nothing. They want something out of it, and I don't want to give them it. Go ahead and block ads. So what. They aren't for everyone. Then you get free information, donated to you by the people who like ads and support those who pay to advertise, and the businesses who take the risk in paying to have their name part of your site. People love ads, even those who block them.
manigandham 11y ago
People don't like to pay when they can get things for free. This is human behavior. Donations are also not reliable or viable for a real business. You're not going to change human behavior so donations instead of ads means 99% of the content out there disappears.

Spivak 11y ago

If your websites serve ads then by definition your content isn't free. As long as you believe that ads actually work and influence people then you are imposing a cost on your users. There are websites which are actually free to end users. They don't serve ads, they might have a donation page, and largely exist because the operator simply wants to publish something. Most of the 'old web' embodies these qualities. The assumption that the only way for websites to make money is via ads or paywalls is completely pervasive and it's simply not true. These two options are the most naive monetization strategies. My favorite counterexample is the Welcome to Nightvale Podcast. Their podcast is gratis and without ads. They make money through donations, selling swag, their book, and by performing live shows -- all which sell out extremely fast because I've been trying to get tickets recently. The Internet is quite expensive because of ads.

jack9 11y ago
> If your websites serve ads then by definition your content isn't free It's still free. You choose to access an API, whatever that may be. You don't get to decide what the format is and you don't get to decide what the content (the ads are content in the HTML) is. > The assumption that the only way for websites to make money is via ads or paywalls is completely pervasive and it's simply not true. You are lumping all websites together, which is unhelpful. A tumblr page vs Apple.com. How you measure profitable is not cut and dry. Google's search isn't profitable, but the reselling of data and injection of data side is. Just because you have an agenda, doesn't mean the ecosystem matches your ideal wishes. The internet itself transmits VAST (pun!) amounts of data and ads are a small portion of that compared to say...video. 300 Hours of Video Uploaded to YouTube Every Minute. How much of that are ads? It's about 2 hours. The internet is not expensive because of ads. They sit nicely on top of it, which is part of why they are tolerated.
- Spivak 11y ago
  > It's still free. You choose to access an API, whatever that may be. You don't get to decide what the format is and you don't get to decide what the content (the ads are content in the HTML) is. That's a silly definition of free because it's too narrow. Imagine a website that required you to move your mouse in a circle for a minute before it allowed you to access the content. Would you argue that the website is still free? Is your time not valuable? > You are lumping all websites together, which is unhelpful. A tumblr page vs Apple.com. How you measure profitable is not cut and dry. Right, I'm trying to consider a website as part of a larger business which has far more monetization opportunities than if we demand that the literal website must be independently profitable.

myhf 11y ago

The internet is free because of commerce. Pages are large and slow because merchants have no mechanism (other than ads) for transmitting money to where the costs are incurred.

PhasmaFelis 11y ago

The author addresses that. It would be really nice if you would finish reading the first page before the snarky comments.

jjaredsimpson 11y ago

Most internet content is garbage designed to maximize ad revenue. If it went away nothing of value is lost. Magazines also are affordable because of ads. Most magazines are pure trash I would never read.

manigandham 11y ago
I don't get your point here. Nothing has taken away your choice on what to read. If you don't find it interesting, just move on. Value is inherently subjective - so a statement that "nothing of value is lost" does not mean much. I certainly don't find celebrity gossip very valuable but the vast amount of people who read and consume that content shows that it is valuable to them. Who am I to judge that? There's nothing good to come of vastly reducing the amount of content out there. More choice and options are always a good thing.

pdkl95 11y ago

1) We didn't "forget". It's a bad idea to pretending people that disagree with you are uninformed or stupid. 2) Ads only created part of the internet. Insisting otherwise only makes you willfully ignorant. 3) Welcome to capitalism. Websites will get to find out their true value. I look forward to a lot of worthless junk going away.