5 ms·

Ads break several basic rules of social interaction, namely "Don't offer unsolicited advice to random strangers." It's simply very rude. If I haven't asked yo

by lottin 10y ago

Ads break several basic rules of social interaction, namely "Don't offer unsolicited advice to random strangers." It's simply very rude. If I haven't asked you for advice, then you shouldn't be giving any to me. End of story.

TheOtherHobbes 10y ago
It's more like "Don't distract and try to bum money from random strangers without even trying to offer something in return." This is something the online ad industry has never understood. Print ads were embedded in an experience that users considered valuable. Online ads don't even try to offer value. They just want your clicks. Because they're so rarely associated with the content around them, they're more like idiots screaming in your ear than interesting people you might want to have a conversation with. So of course people try to filter them out. Why should this surprise anyone?
cortesoft 10y ago
Ok, so no ads at all. Are you ok with no free news websites, only premium TV channels, etc?
- coldpie 10y ago
  Yes. The BBC seems to be doing quite well in the UK with no ads.
  - ourmandave 10y ago
    Ah, but those BBC guys collect a licensing tax on everyone in the UK. They're like a state sponsored premium channel. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licensing_in_the_United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licensing_in_the_Un...
    - coldpie 10y ago
      Yep. Just one of many business models that don't involve hocking malware to your users.
- majewsky 10y ago
  I for one would like more individuals running their own news website. It would need only relatively few subscribers to keep the lights on in a one-man shop that only pays for the own salary and maybe a press agency subscription.
- vitd 10y ago
  There are other options. For example, I used to be a poor college student who had no money. I listened to NPR sometimes, but didn't pay. Now I have a good job, and I pay to listen. I don't mind at all that I'm supporting people who can't pay. Some of them will pay eventually, some will continue to get it for free. It's not an either/or proposition.

by lottin 10y ago

TheOtherHobbes 10y ago

It's more like "Don't distract and try to bum money from random strangers without even trying to offer something in return." This is something the online ad industry has never understood. Print ads were embedded in an experience that users considered valuable. Online ads don't even try to offer value. They just want your clicks. Because they're so rarely associated with the content around them, they're more like idiots screaming in your ear than interesting people you might want to have a conversation with. So of course people try to filter them out. Why should this surprise anyone?

cortesoft 10y ago

Ok, so no ads at all. Are you ok with no free news websites, only premium TV channels, etc?

coldpie 10y ago
Yes. The BBC seems to be doing quite well in the UK with no ads.
- ourmandave 10y ago
  Ah, but those BBC guys collect a licensing tax on everyone in the UK. They're like a state sponsored premium channel. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licensing_in_the_United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licensing_in_the_Un...
  - coldpie 10y ago
    Yep. Just one of many business models that don't involve hocking malware to your users.
majewsky 10y ago
I for one would like more individuals running their own news website. It would need only relatively few subscribers to keep the lights on in a one-man shop that only pays for the own salary and maybe a press agency subscription.
vitd 10y ago
There are other options. For example, I used to be a poor college student who had no money. I listened to NPR sometimes, but didn't pay. Now I have a good job, and I pay to listen. I don't mind at all that I'm supporting people who can't pay. Some of them will pay eventually, some will continue to get it for free. It's not an either/or proposition.