5 ms·
> Sure, a sponsorship or freemium model would cover that though. No, it wouldn't. It would only cover a small fraction of creators, and definitely not enough w
by ucaetano 9y ago
> Sure, a sponsorship or freemium model would cover that though.
No, it wouldn't. It would only cover a small fraction of creators, and definitely not enough with money.
Your attention is worth far more than the cost of the content/service to the advertisers. And the service is worth to you far more than your attention.
It is a trade where value is generated to both sides: you provide your attention, which is worth almost nothing to you, and receive a service in return.
> And if you don't care about a service, why care if it goes away?
Caring and liking are different. I hate my ISP, but it would be even worse if it went away.
- sp332 9y agoYour attention is only valuable to advertisers to the extent that you might buy something. If you can't afford what they're selling, your attention is not worth anything to them. The whole online advertising industry is propped up by a few % of people who click ads. That's how I know that a relatively few people can keep it all afloat.
- ucaetano 9y ago> That's how I know that a relatively few people can keep it all afloat. No, clicking on those ads doesn't cost anything for those few people. Now they'd actually have to pay for the content, and subsidize everyone else, which wouldn't happen, they'd just move to a paywalled model. Ads generate cross-subsidization, subscriptions generate pay-walling.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]