3 ms·

> I do think that advertising has made the world better. A majority of the content on the internet is viable because of it. AKA the "harmful behavior is ok whe

by ebg13 8y ago

> I do think that advertising has made the world better. A majority of the content on the internet is viable because of it. AKA the "harmful behavior is ok when it's profitable" theory. I don't agree.

mrep 8y ago
Would you rather have every website prompt you with a paywall instead because that is the only other profitable solution I can think of.
- ebg13 8y ago
  You are either ignoring the context of this subthread or agreeing with it. I'll remind you: ashishmalik says "Everything is ok because money!"
  - objectivetruth 8y ago
    You are seemingly ignoring parent's point that the adtech model funding our free web services is one of only two seemingly-possible models, and they both involve money. I guess a utopian 100% decentralized mesh network with easy-to-home-build commodity OTS hardware and 100% open well-defined protocols is theoretically possible but that's not how the cards played out. Nothing is black and white, most people recognize nuance, and for most people the net balance of the trade-offs in the current 'free online services subsidized by adtech' model is good enough.
objectivetruth 8y ago
Every activity or decision has the potential for good and bad nuances. Bacon is terrible for the pig, the pig farm's neighbors, and my cholesterol level... but on occasion I make the decision that the taste experience outweighs those negatives. Most people (or "the market") have decided that the cons of adtech are outweighed by the pros of generally free web services.
jfoster 8y ago
I view it as being more like, the things that have advertising are pretty much only in existence because they can be funded by it. The fact that it exists in order to fund them is great because now we have a choice. We can visit those sites and endure the ads, or we can not visit those sites. How would this work without advertising? Who would be paying for the websites that we enjoy?

by ebg13 8y ago

mrep 8y ago

Would you rather have every website prompt you with a paywall instead because that is the only other profitable solution I can think of.

ebg13 8y ago
You are either ignoring the context of this subthread or agreeing with it. I'll remind you: ashishmalik says "Everything is ok because money!"
- objectivetruth 8y ago
  You are seemingly ignoring parent's point that the adtech model funding our free web services is one of only two seemingly-possible models, and they both involve money. I guess a utopian 100% decentralized mesh network with easy-to-home-build commodity OTS hardware and 100% open well-defined protocols is theoretically possible but that's not how the cards played out. Nothing is black and white, most people recognize nuance, and for most people the net balance of the trade-offs in the current 'free online services subsidized by adtech' model is good enough.

objectivetruth 8y ago

Every activity or decision has the potential for good and bad nuances. Bacon is terrible for the pig, the pig farm's neighbors, and my cholesterol level... but on occasion I make the decision that the taste experience outweighs those negatives. Most people (or "the market") have decided that the cons of adtech are outweighed by the pros of generally free web services.

jfoster 8y ago

I view it as being more like, the things that have advertising are pretty much only in existence because they can be funded by it. The fact that it exists in order to fund them is great because now we have a choice. We can visit those sites and endure the ads, or we can not visit those sites. How would this work without advertising? Who would be paying for the websites that we enjoy?