3 ms·

You’d lose a lot more companies than that - vast swathes of content producers would go under. Their bottom line absolutely would be affected. This dream would

You’d lose a lot more companies than that - vast swathes of content producers would go under. Their bottom line absolutely would be affected. This dream would be the single most destructive thing to happen to the internet

satori99 9y ago
> This dream would be the single most destructive thing to happen to the internet Hyperbole much? That statement is just rubbish. Personally I think it would be the most constructive thing to happen to the Internet. Hell, maybe even society in general. Advertisers are scum, they ruin everything they touch, and any 'content' producers whose businesses died if this was to occur would certainly not be missed by me.
- abritinthebay 9y ago
  Not hyperbole. Having the majority of content producers be unable to continue operation would be a blow the Internet has never seen. Massively destructive. Nothing would come close that’s happened before.
  - satori99 9y ago
    If no-one is willing to pay for their 'content', then it isn't worth anything anyway. The Internet did just fine without corporate advertisers running the show and tracking everybody for years.
    - abritinthebay 9y ago
      You mean in the early to late 90s? Because advertising has been running the show at many levels since the early 2000s. If you don't think regressing the internet back 20 years would be massively destructive... well, I can't help you.
gaius 9y ago
Content worth paying for is worth paying for the old-fashioned way. Movies are not an ad-supported industry, nor is music. We'd only lose the crap that has to trick people into paying indirectly, and good riddance.
- abritinthebay 9y ago
  Worth is not what is at stake here. It’s become obviously apparent that the public - even if they see value in something - prefers to get it for “free”.
TeMPOraL 9y ago
Yeah, destructive in the sense of how antibiotics are destructive to germs. Please, give me more of them! (Also, I hate the phrase "content producer". It seems to imply that content is fungible - companies thinking in such terms are precisely those who should go under.)
- abritinthebay 9y ago
  It implies nothing of the sort. It just recognizes a group that produce content that is consumed online. Your biases are irrelevant

satori99 9y ago

> This dream would be the single most destructive thing to happen to the internet Hyperbole much? That statement is just rubbish. Personally I think it would be the most constructive thing to happen to the Internet. Hell, maybe even society in general. Advertisers are scum, they ruin everything they touch, and any 'content' producers whose businesses died if this was to occur would certainly not be missed by me.

abritinthebay 9y ago
Not hyperbole. Having the majority of content producers be unable to continue operation would be a blow the Internet has never seen. Massively destructive. Nothing would come close that’s happened before.
- satori99 9y ago
  If no-one is willing to pay for their 'content', then it isn't worth anything anyway. The Internet did just fine without corporate advertisers running the show and tracking everybody for years.
  - abritinthebay 9y ago
    You mean in the early to late 90s? Because advertising has been running the show at many levels since the early 2000s. If you don't think regressing the internet back 20 years would be massively destructive... well, I can't help you.

gaius 9y ago

Content worth paying for is worth paying for the old-fashioned way. Movies are not an ad-supported industry, nor is music. We'd only lose the crap that has to trick people into paying indirectly, and good riddance.

abritinthebay 9y ago
Worth is not what is at stake here. It’s become obviously apparent that the public - even if they see value in something - prefers to get it for “free”.

TeMPOraL 9y ago

Yeah, destructive in the sense of how antibiotics are destructive to germs. Please, give me more of them! (Also, I hate the phrase "content producer". It seems to imply that content is fungible - companies thinking in such terms are precisely those who should go under.)

abritinthebay 9y ago
It implies nothing of the sort. It just recognizes a group that produce content that is consumed online. Your biases are irrelevant