3 ms·

> a solid pro-ad argument, but I've yet to find one. That's because there is no argument to be had. Ads subsidize the vast majority of content on the internet,

> a solid pro-ad argument, but I've yet to find one. That's because there is no argument to be had. Ads subsidize the vast majority of content on the internet, full stop. Just as they did TV stations before cable. That content wasn't free, those ad companies paid for their ad spots, which paid for those television shows. The same is true for the internet, without ads, the internet would look very, very different. Without ads, there would be no innovation, and a hell of a lot less content, 80% or more less. We're talking going back to the mid 1990s, and not in a good way. So I guess if that's your ideal internet, sure, that's not an argument for ads. But for me, I prefer the current internet. I like my websites like reddit, facebook and youtube. I like having the news at my fingertips. I like being able to watch any TV show I want. It's a butterfly effect on a massive scale - you remove ads from the equation, the majority of what we know as the internet goes with it because they're directly responsible for the bulk of the innovation.

izacus 11y ago
Only in a black and white fairy tale world. There are myriad of other choices than just "ads like now" or "no ads". There are also other revenue streams, other forms of advertising, other forms of commerce. The way you picture the situation has nothing to do with reality of choices.
TeMPOraL 11y ago
> It's a butterfly effect on a massive scale - you remove ads from the equation, the majority of what we know as the internet goes with it because they're directly responsible for the bulk of the innovation. And I say, bring it on. Majority of the Internet is crap. It'll be better to see it go. Most content that's actually valuable is treated either as a loss leader or simply cost to be covered from external sources. The rest can be covered with donations. People who want to share something useful will share something useful. What we will get rid of is all those poor attempts at making a quick buck off people.
- madeofpalk 11y ago
  If you think the majority of the internet is crap, then don't use it. I think Gizmodo is crap, so I don't read it. But Gizmodo's existence doesn't bother me.
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    I don't use it either. The point is - I don't buy the "Internet will die without ads" argument. What will die is the (what I consider) crap part. So I say, let it die.
CaptSpify 11y ago
"...essentially all of the ad supported sites I visit are diversions" - https://utcc.utoronto.ca/~cks/space/blog/web/AdSupportedWebDeathView https://utcc.utoronto.ca/~cks/space/blog/web/AdSupportedWebD... > ads subsidize the vast majority of content on the internet, full stop And most of that content is bullshit. I wouldn't miss most of the ad-based sites. Most of the "innovation" is bullshit. I disagree that we'd go back to the mid-90's setup, but I'd even prefer that to what it is today. The internet did just fine before ads, and it'd do just fine if they disappeared. I stand by my statement of there being no solid pro-ad argument.
- meagain20000 11y ago
  Nobody is forcing you to experience that content. You on the other hand have decided that content I might like is bullshit. That is not your call. Seriously, let people be.
  - CaptSpify 11y ago
    I'm not saying you can't like that content, nor support it if you want. I'm not even sure where you got that from. I'm saying that I'm not going to support it. I don't get what your comment it supposed to address?

izacus 11y ago

Only in a black and white fairy tale world. There are myriad of other choices than just "ads like now" or "no ads". There are also other revenue streams, other forms of advertising, other forms of commerce. The way you picture the situation has nothing to do with reality of choices.

TeMPOraL 11y ago

> It's a butterfly effect on a massive scale - you remove ads from the equation, the majority of what we know as the internet goes with it because they're directly responsible for the bulk of the innovation. And I say, bring it on. Majority of the Internet is crap. It'll be better to see it go. Most content that's actually valuable is treated either as a loss leader or simply cost to be covered from external sources. The rest can be covered with donations. People who want to share something useful will share something useful. What we will get rid of is all those poor attempts at making a quick buck off people.

madeofpalk 11y ago
If you think the majority of the internet is crap, then don't use it. I think Gizmodo is crap, so I don't read it. But Gizmodo's existence doesn't bother me.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  I don't use it either. The point is - I don't buy the "Internet will die without ads" argument. What will die is the (what I consider) crap part. So I say, let it die.

CaptSpify 11y ago

"...essentially all of the ad supported sites I visit are diversions" - https://utcc.utoronto.ca/~cks/space/blog/web/AdSupportedWebDeathView https://utcc.utoronto.ca/~cks/space/blog/web/AdSupportedWebD... > ads subsidize the vast majority of content on the internet, full stop And most of that content is bullshit. I wouldn't miss most of the ad-based sites. Most of the "innovation" is bullshit. I disagree that we'd go back to the mid-90's setup, but I'd even prefer that to what it is today. The internet did just fine before ads, and it'd do just fine if they disappeared. I stand by my statement of there being no solid pro-ad argument.

meagain20000 11y ago
Nobody is forcing you to experience that content. You on the other hand have decided that content I might like is bullshit. That is not your call. Seriously, let people be.
- CaptSpify 11y ago
  I'm not saying you can't like that content, nor support it if you want. I'm not even sure where you got that from. I'm saying that I'm not going to support it. I don't get what your comment it supposed to address?