2 ms·
I haven't much sympathy for either consumers or content providers who use ads. The delivery of the content has to be paid for by someone. Usually the consumer
by sidlls 10y ago
I haven't much sympathy for either consumers or content providers who use ads.
The delivery of the content has to be paid for by someone. Usually the consumer balks at that. People expect things on the internet to simply be free. But they aren't free, and ads are a way of signaling that.
That doesn't mean the current situation where ads are intrusive and irritating and a source of malware is good, and that's on the content providers and ad networks to address.
- UweSchmidt 10y agoThe delivery of the content is paid by all of us, because the cost of advertising is of course priced into every single purchase we make. The idea that "the internet is free because of ads" (not your point, but the idea is brought up all the time) is wrong - we're not just paying by suffering the ads, we are literally paying with our money for that nonsense.
- sidlls 10y agoYep, which is one reason why I haven't much sympathy for consumers. Another being that I've been on the provider end, and saw consumers pick the "free" ad-driven version of an app over the $1 version. They can't view the ads as being that bad if even $1 is such a steep price they'll tolerate the ads to avoid paying it.