7 ms·

Other than a completely new approach for producing value such as the 'Freeism' one described in the article suggested in this comment https://news.ycombinator.c

Other than a completely new approach for producing value such as the 'Freeism' one described in the article suggested in this comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20282851 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20282851 (which I hadn't time to read yet and hence I'm neither in favour of or against) this simply boils down to the questions of who will pay for relevant content and what the business model will be. By and large, people don't seem to be willing to pay for content on the web. Hence, advertising became the dominant business model for content on the web. Find another way for someone to pay for relevant content and you can do away with advertising. It's as simple as that.

Fjolsvith 7y ago
> Find another way for someone to pay for relevant content and you can do away with advertising. It's as simple as that. Not so simple. What is relevant for me may be irrelevant for you.
- BjoernKW 7y ago
  You pay for content that's relevant to you. I pay for what's relevant to me.
  - Fjolsvith 7y ago
    Oh, okay. I was assuming we had someone like the government pay for content.
TeMPOraL 7y ago
> By and large, people don't seem to be willing to pay for content on the web. Hence, advertising became the dominant business model for content on the web. I don't think the causality is right here. People might not be willing to pay for content on the web because advertising enables competitors to offer content for free. If you removed that option, if people had no choice but to pay, it might just turn out that people would pay.
- Fjolsvith 7y ago
  Huh. That sounds like a free market model. Isn't this what different newspapers like NYT and WSJ are moving towards? Why can't both models coexist?
  - TeMPOraL 7y ago
    Because one totally destroys the other. Slave labour, selling poison or dumping waste into rivers are all superior business models too, but that doesn't mean they should exist in a civilized society.
    - Nasrudith 7y ago
      The train also destoyed the horse drawn wagon train for bulk land transport. Just because it totally destroys another business model doesn't mean it is wrong. Felony interference with a business model protectionism isn't good for societies. Historically this stagnant "stability" gets them lapped and forced into the modern world if lucky or conquered if not no matter how vigorously they insist that it is the only and right way.
      - TeMPOraL 7y ago
        Of course. I'm not saying displacing business models is bad per se. I'm saying that just because one business model can displace a different one, doesn't immediately mean it's good. Plenty of business models are morally bankrupt, and I believe "free but subsidized by advertising" is such, by virtue of advertising itself[0] being morally bankrupt. -- [0] - as seen today; not the imaginary "informing customers about what's on the market" form, but the real "everyone stuck in a shouting contest of trying to better manipulate customers" form.
- BjoernKW 7y ago
  How would you achieve that? By outrightly outlawing advertising? There absolutely are paid options on the web. It's just that they don't seem to appeal to a sufficient number of buyers so advertising could become irrelevant.

Fjolsvith 7y ago

> Find another way for someone to pay for relevant content and you can do away with advertising. It's as simple as that. Not so simple. What is relevant for me may be irrelevant for you.

BjoernKW 7y ago
You pay for content that's relevant to you. I pay for what's relevant to me.
- Fjolsvith 7y ago
  Oh, okay. I was assuming we had someone like the government pay for content.

TeMPOraL 7y ago

> By and large, people don't seem to be willing to pay for content on the web. Hence, advertising became the dominant business model for content on the web. I don't think the causality is right here. People might not be willing to pay for content on the web because advertising enables competitors to offer content for free. If you removed that option, if people had no choice but to pay, it might just turn out that people would pay.

Fjolsvith 7y ago
Huh. That sounds like a free market model. Isn't this what different newspapers like NYT and WSJ are moving towards? Why can't both models coexist?
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  Because one totally destroys the other. Slave labour, selling poison or dumping waste into rivers are all superior business models too, but that doesn't mean they should exist in a civilized society.
  - Nasrudith 7y ago
    The train also destoyed the horse drawn wagon train for bulk land transport. Just because it totally destroys another business model doesn't mean it is wrong. Felony interference with a business model protectionism isn't good for societies. Historically this stagnant "stability" gets them lapped and forced into the modern world if lucky or conquered if not no matter how vigorously they insist that it is the only and right way.
    - TeMPOraL 7y ago
      Of course. I'm not saying displacing business models is bad per se. I'm saying that just because one business model can displace a different one, doesn't immediately mean it's good. Plenty of business models are morally bankrupt, and I believe "free but subsidized by advertising" is such, by virtue of advertising itself[0] being morally bankrupt. -- [0] - as seen today; not the imaginary "informing customers about what's on the market" form, but the real "everyone stuck in a shouting contest of trying to better manipulate customers" form.
BjoernKW 7y ago
How would you achieve that? By outrightly outlawing advertising? There absolutely are paid options on the web. It's just that they don't seem to appeal to a sufficient number of buyers so advertising could become irrelevant.