5 ms·

The endgame is for sites to provide content that users want to pay for. If you would ban ads on the internet, only sites actually being useful to users would r

The endgame is for sites to provide content that users want to pay for. If you would ban ads on the internet, only sites actually being useful to users would remain. The rest would die off, along with the ad industry on the internet. Sounds like a dream to me.

nicbou 8y ago
Nobody pays for content. Let's stop pretending it's a usable business model. Even paywalls are hated by most, and banned by some communities. If you block ads, they'll simply make the content an ad.
- CaptSpify 8y ago
  A) They are going to make the content an ad anyway. It's not like they are going to turn down one advertising revenue stream just because their old one came back. B) Tons of people pay for content. It's a perfectly viable business model. Look at Patreon, Kickstarter, etc. The uncomfortable truth for website owners is that they are likely just not putting out material that is worth paying for.
listenallyall 8y ago
In terms of news, there likely is no such thing. The WSJ is among the most respected and high-quality newspapers on Earth. Despite that, every time a WSJ article is posted on HN, somebody posts a paywall workaround. If HN won't pay for content, you expect the average joe will? Get real. This is just a sample from this week: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17510315 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17510315 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17490839 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17490839 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17479284 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17479284 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17480087 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17480087
- flukus 8y ago
  > In terms of news, there likely is no such thing. Most countries have public broadcasters like the BBC that are much higher quality than most of the commercial options. We're already paying for news.

nicbou 8y ago

Nobody pays for content. Let's stop pretending it's a usable business model. Even paywalls are hated by most, and banned by some communities. If you block ads, they'll simply make the content an ad.

CaptSpify 8y ago
A) They are going to make the content an ad anyway. It's not like they are going to turn down one advertising revenue stream just because their old one came back. B) Tons of people pay for content. It's a perfectly viable business model. Look at Patreon, Kickstarter, etc. The uncomfortable truth for website owners is that they are likely just not putting out material that is worth paying for.

listenallyall 8y ago

In terms of news, there likely is no such thing. The WSJ is among the most respected and high-quality newspapers on Earth. Despite that, every time a WSJ article is posted on HN, somebody posts a paywall workaround. If HN won't pay for content, you expect the average joe will? Get real. This is just a sample from this week: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17510315 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17510315 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17490839 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17490839 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17479284 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17479284 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17480087 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17480087

flukus 8y ago
> In terms of news, there likely is no such thing. Most countries have public broadcasters like the BBC that are much higher quality than most of the commercial options. We're already paying for news.