3 ms·
Hmm, it sounds like a very indirect payment method to me -- I pay taxes here in AU, and abc.net.au exists. It's even more indirect for my usage of (for example
by Jedd 11y ago
Hmm, it sounds like a very indirect payment method to me -- I pay taxes here in AU, and abc.net.au exists. It's even more indirect for my usage of (for example) the bbc's web services, given that I pay neither UK taxes or TV licence.
Those services are funded in the same way that broadcast TV is funded.
It's also perhaps a smidge disingenuous to suggest there is no cost to the user for having advertising inflicted upon them. Hence the interest in ad blockers. Which I think is where we came in. : )
- manigandham 11y agoIf you pay taxes - isn't that a direct debit of funds from you and eventually going straight to the publisher of that content? Broadcast TV is usually a combination of both taxes, donations and ads. For the BBC, can you explain what you're referring to specifically? I know their site does run ads and their iplayer content is region locked to the UK so assuming non-circumvention processes, I'm not sure what you mean. Of course there is completely free access to content sometimes but this is usually because the publisher has the luxury of income from somewhere else, so that can explain the BBC situation for you and how I can read abc.net.au from the USA. And yes, nothing is completely "free" - I'm just arguing about monetary access. Ads means you're paying with attention which has it's own costs and externalities.
- quadrangle 11y agoYes, you're paying with attention. Absolutely. http://mimiandeunice.com/2010/07/27/pay/ http://mimiandeunice.com/2010/07/27/pay/ That truth still doesn't mean nothing can be free. There are free things in the world, and there's a vested interest by some parties to convince people otherwise. If you sell things, you want to convince people that no free options exist.