4 ms·
> Even at the risk of coming off as an arsehole: I'm sorry, but you are collateral damage. If the small site owners are only collateral damage for you then you
by tobltobs 9y ago
> Even at the risk of coming off as an arsehole: I'm sorry, but you are collateral damage.
If the small site owners are only collateral damage for you then you also welcome a internet which is dominated by big companies and people with enough money to push their agenda.
- bostik 9y agoI sure as hell don't like it, but I believe that's been the case for a number of years already. Just like the offline world.
- sago 9y agoThis seems to be the current 'ad-positive' argument de jour. But I don't buy it. There is plenty and always has been plenty of free content on the web. It is very cheap to publish. But advertising has led to the collapse of the small business or hobby website. Realistically nobody will ever see your content unless you advertise heavily, or post on a platform that uses your content to sell its ads. Advertising, as far as I can see, has had a negative impact on the democracy of the web. And lead to an increase in the domination of big platform holders and brands.
- tobltobs 9y ago> Realistically nobody will ever see your content unless you advertise heavily, or post on a platform that uses your content to sell its ads. Care to elaborate why this should happen? Do you believe the "Google will rank you bad if you don't use Adsense" conspiracy theorie?
- LeoNatan25 9y agoFor example, posts on Facebook and Twitter get buried on purpose until you “promote” them.