4 ms·
Kind of correct. Probably it's only because I still remember the old "non-monetized" internet, but I just don't get the line of thought that posting some stuff
by rdiddly 10y ago
Kind of correct. Probably it's only because I still remember the old "non-monetized" internet, but I just don't get the line of thought that posting some stuff on the web means everybody owes you a living. Lest we forget, those who want to make money from the internet are the more recent arrivals, and (especially at the time when it happened and I was young & idealistic) I found them to be like the crass uninvited guests who show up late and ruin the party (while thinking they actually turned a lame party awesome). Before they arrived, "the party" was full of useful sites like this, run by people for the simple love of whatever-it-was. The amateur internet, I suppose you'd call it. The reason this is a breath of fresh air is because it simply is what it is (not in the trying-to-assuage-my-disappointment sense, but in the no-deceptive-obfuscation sense) and in that way hearkens back to that era and doesn't bear the stench of today's typical swindles, schemes, and dubious offers. Yet it takes advantage of some of today's design tools/ideas and is a better quality experience than a lot of sites "back in the day."
Mind you, I don't begrudge anyone what they're doing, even if it's commercial, but the time you spent creating "content" may be worth something to someone, or maybe not. When you demand compensation, the bar is higher.
- kinkrtyavimoodh 10y ago>> "that posting some stuff on the web means everybody owes you a living." You don't owe them a living, but specifically acting to rob them of a living that they are trying to earn without getting in your way (affiliate links or non intrusive ads or such) moves from idealistic to dickish. New inventions or changes give rise to new paradigms, and with new paradigms come new ways to earn money or in general exchange goods and services.
- rdiddly 10y agoNobody said a thing about acting to rob anybody of anything. If you're trying to reopen the ad-blocking debate, I'm not really interested in that. I'm saying and I believe the grandparent is saying, sites with those features are to varying degrees less-good, precisely because of those features. Since I'm under no obligation to funnel myself into that site, I'll tend to ignore it, and I'm more likely to ignore it the less value it actually offers. (And the net value it offers, does decrease because of ads and adtech tactics.) In my case I'm also saying, commerce itself is basically boring; I can find it anywhere. I believe your use of the word "rob" is inappropriate since you can't be robbed of something you don't own. (My attention, the content of my web browser, etc.)