3 ms·
> It dismisses the idea that there could be alternate ways to fund content (i.e. micropayments) Because it's not valid alternative. It may work some edge-cases
by justapassenger 7y ago
> It dismisses the idea that there could be alternate ways to fund content (i.e. micropayments)
Because it's not valid alternative. It may work some edge-cases, but there's 0 evidence that it could support economy at the same scale as ads.
> We absolutely need a new funding model for the web (to kill ads).
We need to rework how ads work, but killing ads is very naive approach. Ads are core part to how world economy operates (and always have been). Calling for killing advertising is only hurting the case - it makes it easy to dismiss, as some crazy hippie talk.
- _vertigo 7y agoI don't want to see ads. Given the alternative between having ads everywhere and paying a fraction of a cent to see content, I would choose the latter. Ads are annoying enough to me that I would absolutely pay a fraction of a cent to not view the ad. I know there are probably a lot of people who would rather be advertised to than pay any non-zero amount to view content. Those people should be able to pay with their attention. Maybe we don't need to kill ads, but having the choice to pay with money would definitely be welcome to people like me.
- tripzilch 7y ago> Ads are core part to how world economy operates (and always have been). I don't think it's at all reasonable to compare the way ads used to be (inert) to the tracking/privacy/malware nightmare that online advertising has become. Just because we've always had some (comparatively mild) forms of advertisement doesn't mean we should put up with this blight.