3 ms·

You seem to hate capitalism because your argument against ABP was basically "they get revenue." ABP is in fact a capitalist solution. It gives advertisers an i

You seem to hate capitalism because your argument against ABP was basically "they get revenue." ABP is in fact a capitalist solution. It gives advertisers an incentive to tone down their ads so they can be seen by more people. Absolutist ad blockers are actually the ones exploiting the tragedy of the commons. Without advertising, the content which you're viewing without ads would not exist. > Revenue will be generated, only that it will eventually have to come from consumers directly to publishers and content creators. Why? That's your personal preference and political position. Reality isn't forced to adapt to your preferences and in practice advertising has existed for thousands of years—it's unlikely to go away anytime soon. Moreover, I suspect that if you asked most people outside the HN echo chamber they'd actually rather have advertising than paying through subscriptions.

nitrogen 11y ago
You seem to hate capitalism because your argument against ABP was basically "they get revenue." This is a very disingenuous representation of the other comments in the thread. It's a low-brow dismissal by straw man and an appeal to the sacrosanct "capitalism". You seem to be trying to manipulate others into supporting your view by labeling the other view as anti-capitalism. This is the same as accusing anyone who opposes government surveillance of "hating freedom". ABP is problematic because of how they generate revenue. From the advertisers' side, it looks like racketeering. From the consumer side, it looks like the tobacco industry paying your doctor to get you to smoke. Accepting money to whitelist ads is the very thing an ad blocker should never do.