Ironically (or not), the article is exactly on the kind of website which it describes as 'shit'. But I agree with it. The web is no longer a place to 'share i

Ironically (or not), the article is exactly on the kind of website which it describes as 'shit'. But I agree with it. The web is no longer a place to 'share information'. It is a place where 'content' is 'monetized' - or whatever the language they use nowadays. Back in the day you'd have the web-site text with a little space left for 'banners', now it's vice-versa - the content is advertising and the useful information is used to lure in 'traffic'. All the big 'media' sites, Facebook and Google included are actually advertising companies and this is the result. Sure, they also produce 'useful' stuff, but that's because they're well-funded places were smart people go to do their smart things. I personally wouldn't mind if all the ad-supported content went away tomorrow. If a web-site tells me to disable my ad-blocker, I just close the tab. "But we should somehow support... ". No we shouldn't. There's too much crap out there, more than enough to consume in several lifetimes - noise, which disorients and confuses us. We should do the opposite - fight the ads, boycott ad-sites (that includes most 'news' websites, which are useless and toxic time wasters) and support sites which are valuable - donate, pay for subscriptions, etc. Even with no funding, valuable content will still be posted by people who are passionate and have something to say about a subject. All the rest is, as tfa says - "shit".