3 ms·

People are not prepared to pay for your content, so you bemoan that when you give it to them for free (but in so doing destroy their privacy), they attempt to b

People are not prepared to pay for your content, so you bemoan that when you give it to them for free (but in so doing destroy their privacy), they attempt to block that revenue stream. I'd like to suggest advertising has become a crutch, preventing you from innovating: why not try and find a way to produce product content that people wish to pay for? If you can't do that, you have two choices: continue as you are, but see it as a voluntary hobbyist project in which the content is given to the public domain and you do not monetise it; or, give up and let others decide. The best thing that could happen to the Internet today is the destruction of the advertising industry. Yes, it will change how Google and Facebook will need to make money. Some of these unicorns might struggle to survive and will die. It will cause a revolution down through the millions of smaller publishers as they have to think about how to make money without advertising: many will not be able to survive and will become nothing but memories on archive.org. So be it. This, in the opinion of many people including myself, will be for the betterment of us all as a society. So, respectively, I'm going to have to decline your request. I'm installing AdNauseum and I sincerely hope that advertising industry is destroyed to the point that you have to find a new - better - revenue model. Good luck.

jbreckmckye 9y ago
> This, in the opinion of many people including myself, will be for the betterment of us all as a society. If you achieve this, the result will be that the only people who can publish on the net are those with deep pockets and other interests. They may be companies (who write content as marketing), plutocrats (who will publish pro-business propaganda) or the state. This is where we are heading: where the average citizen learns about their country from a Facebook feed, written by the Koch brothers. This is going to have incredibly harmful effects on our society, and - I will not mince words - it seems to me the blame will rest with _people like you_. That means YOU will be responsible for fake news and newspapers competing with the worst of the internet. That YOU will be responsible for advertisement disguised as news. All because you were too outraged to accept ads and too apathetic to pay a few dollars for paper news.
- mrob 9y ago
  >only people who can publish on the net are those with deep pockets and other interests Here's a beautiful and informative website: https://bestmotherfucking.website/ https://bestmotherfucking.website/ According to Firefox's Network Monitor, that's 2.47kB of data transfer. It's static HTML, so server load is minimal. One small donation could cover the costs for years.
  - jbreckmckye 9y ago
    It is not the server costs that are expensive; it's producing the content.
    - convery 9y ago
      This. I feel like a lot of the responses are along the lines of; "you can get a VPS for 2€ so your site will still be profitable if 99% of users adblock; stop whining".
      - Tech-Noir 9y ago
        I think what people are saying is nobody owes you a living (this isn't meant to sound rude, I mean you don't owe anyone else one either, do you). If something isn't working the way you want, that's a sign to do something else.
        joaomacp 9y ago
        So if my side project is not working out, I will work for google or facebook. I don't think that's better.
    - pdkl95 9y ago
      Your claim was about the cost to "publish on the net", not the cost of production.
- Sir_Substance 9y ago

jbreckmckye 9y ago

> This, in the opinion of many people including myself, will be for the betterment of us all as a society. If you achieve this, the result will be that the only people who can publish on the net are those with deep pockets and other interests. They may be companies (who write content as marketing), plutocrats (who will publish pro-business propaganda) or the state. This is where we are heading: where the average citizen learns about their country from a Facebook feed, written by the Koch brothers. This is going to have incredibly harmful effects on our society, and - I will not mince words - it seems to me the blame will rest with _people like you_. That means YOU will be responsible for fake news and newspapers competing with the worst of the internet. That YOU will be responsible for advertisement disguised as news. All because you were too outraged to accept ads and too apathetic to pay a few dollars for paper news.

mrob 9y ago
>only people who can publish on the net are those with deep pockets and other interests Here's a beautiful and informative website: https://bestmotherfucking.website/ https://bestmotherfucking.website/ According to Firefox's Network Monitor, that's 2.47kB of data transfer. It's static HTML, so server load is minimal. One small donation could cover the costs for years.
- jbreckmckye 9y ago
  It is not the server costs that are expensive; it's producing the content.
  - convery 9y ago
    This. I feel like a lot of the responses are along the lines of; "you can get a VPS for 2€ so your site will still be profitable if 99% of users adblock; stop whining".
    - Tech-Noir 9y ago
      I think what people are saying is nobody owes you a living (this isn't meant to sound rude, I mean you don't owe anyone else one either, do you). If something isn't working the way you want, that's a sign to do something else.
      - joaomacp 9y ago
        So if my side project is not working out, I will work for google or facebook. I don't think that's better.
  - pdkl95 9y ago
    Your claim was about the cost to "publish on the net", not the cost of production.
Sir_Substance 9y ago