3 ms·
I thought this Sam Altman tweet is relevant: "not enough of us are willing to pay for news, so we get the click-bait ad-driven news we deserve." (https://twitte
by argonaut 10y ago
I thought this Sam Altman tweet is relevant: "not enough of us are willing to pay for news, so we get the click-bait ad-driven news we deserve." (https://twitter.com/sama/status/736579483923156992 https://twitter.com/sama/status/736579483923156992).
It comes off (in tone) as a bit entitled when I see people complaining about how they aren't able to view free (free!) ad-supported content for free because they are using an adblocker. I use ad block. I recognize that I am a freeloader. I don't pretend I'm not. I know the usual rebuttal is something like "I'd pay for it if they offered" - but this is a non sequitur because it doesn't really change the fact that publications have no obligation to cater to our every content-gorging whim.
- taneq 10y agoI have to agree with you here. I usually don't use an archive link or other shenanigans to circumvent anti-ad-blocking measures, if a site would rather lose a reader than allow ads to be blocked then I'll just not read the article. This one, with ads, was unreadable anyway so it's a moot point really.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- EdHominem 10y agoAd-filled and ad-funded, news isn't news. It's corporate pandering with some external content. As long as we're at this local maxima, with crap crowding out quality, news can never improve and will never be worth paying for.