5 ms·

> because advertising is a huge deal for the health of the internet, despite its vilification [citation needed] I am of the opinion that internet would be a m

by Iv 7y ago

> because advertising is a huge deal for the health of the internet, despite its vilification [citation needed] I am of the opinion that internet would be a much saner place if advertisement was purely and simply banned.

layoutIfNeeded 7y ago
I’m banning advertising via ublock origin and I can attest that the web indeed becomes a saner place without ads.
- lucasverra 7y ago
  on ios im using a remove ads DNS thought VPN app. It is a nicer experience for sure
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
rhlsthrm 7y ago
Then how would we be able to browse for free?
- belorn 7y ago
  The free internet can be split into two groups, websites operated for non-commercial reasons and websites operated for commercial reasons. The group that operate under commercial reasons can also be split into two groups, those whose primary revenue is from advertisement and those whose primary revenue is from non-advertisement sources. Hacker news for example belong to the later and gain revenue from investing. To answer the question on how would the internet exist without the subgroup of people who operate website for the commercial reasons of advertisement is difficult as each of those groups also compete with each other, but we can be pretty sure that the other groups wound increase in size.
  - jefftk 7y ago
    HN has ads: startups advertising for employees. But I don't know how YC thinks of the effect of HN.
    - JetSpiegel 7y ago
      It has ads, but those are not commercial. Only indirectly.
      - jefftk 7y ago
        What do you mean that the ads aren't commercial?
        JetSpiegel 7y ago
        The companies don't pay for the ads (that's my understanding). It's not dissimilar from an artist mentioning a patron. It's more an endorsement than an ad, it's not exactly the same thing as AdWords.
- squiggleblaz 7y ago
  Sometimes, the same way we eat for free. [As a rule, we don't, but we have a much greater need for food than free internet browsing.] Othertimes, the same way we breathe air for free. [Some things are too difficult to contain.] Still other times, the same way we drink water for free. [Some things aren't really free though they feel like it. Instead, we pay for them at another point.]
- pb82 7y ago
  If there is a medium for sharing content and communicating then it will be used. With or without monetization. The infrastructure is still funded because you pay for access and hosting. That being said, I don't believe that's going to happen. So uBlock Origin, Privacy Badger and ever more aggressive blocking it is.
- Iv 7y ago
  I am not able to browse for free. Right now it costs me around $35 a month for access. I'd gladly add a few dollars to have an ad-free web and I bet many people would as well.
- ken 7y ago
  I'm confused by this, because the websites with the most value to me are those with the fewest ads. Like this one. Or the company website for a tool I bought, where I can now go download the manual as a PDF for free. Or some personal blogs I read. Even Gmail, which used to be the classic "great service in exchange for ads", I only use through IMAP clients and honestly don't even know if they show ads in the web view any more. If you mean journalism, that's a business that has been going out of business even with ads. Advertising is just a historical implementation detail for them, like "printed on newsprint", or "tossed on my porch every morning". It does not look like a serious contender for how to make journalism profitable in the long term, any more than "teenager bicycle delivery system" will continue to be the ideal distribution mechanism for weather reports and sports scores.

by Iv 7y ago

layoutIfNeeded 7y ago

I’m banning advertising via ublock origin and I can attest that the web indeed becomes a saner place without ads.

lucasverra 7y ago
on ios im using a remove ads DNS thought VPN app. It is a nicer experience for sure

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

rhlsthrm 7y ago

Then how would we be able to browse for free?

belorn 7y ago
The free internet can be split into two groups, websites operated for non-commercial reasons and websites operated for commercial reasons. The group that operate under commercial reasons can also be split into two groups, those whose primary revenue is from advertisement and those whose primary revenue is from non-advertisement sources. Hacker news for example belong to the later and gain revenue from investing. To answer the question on how would the internet exist without the subgroup of people who operate website for the commercial reasons of advertisement is difficult as each of those groups also compete with each other, but we can be pretty sure that the other groups wound increase in size.
- jefftk 7y ago
  HN has ads: startups advertising for employees. But I don't know how YC thinks of the effect of HN.
  - JetSpiegel 7y ago
    It has ads, but those are not commercial. Only indirectly.
    - jefftk 7y ago
      What do you mean that the ads aren't commercial?
      - JetSpiegel 7y ago
        The companies don't pay for the ads (that's my understanding). It's not dissimilar from an artist mentioning a patron. It's more an endorsement than an ad, it's not exactly the same thing as AdWords.
squiggleblaz 7y ago
Sometimes, the same way we eat for free. [As a rule, we don't, but we have a much greater need for food than free internet browsing.] Othertimes, the same way we breathe air for free. [Some things are too difficult to contain.] Still other times, the same way we drink water for free. [Some things aren't really free though they feel like it. Instead, we pay for them at another point.]
pb82 7y ago
If there is a medium for sharing content and communicating then it will be used. With or without monetization. The infrastructure is still funded because you pay for access and hosting. That being said, I don't believe that's going to happen. So uBlock Origin, Privacy Badger and ever more aggressive blocking it is.
Iv 7y ago
I am not able to browse for free. Right now it costs me around $35 a month for access. I'd gladly add a few dollars to have an ad-free web and I bet many people would as well.
ken 7y ago
I'm confused by this, because the websites with the most value to me are those with the fewest ads. Like this one. Or the company website for a tool I bought, where I can now go download the manual as a PDF for free. Or some personal blogs I read. Even Gmail, which used to be the classic "great service in exchange for ads", I only use through IMAP clients and honestly don't even know if they show ads in the web view any more. If you mean journalism, that's a business that has been going out of business even with ads. Advertising is just a historical implementation detail for them, like "printed on newsprint", or "tossed on my porch every morning". It does not look like a serious contender for how to make journalism profitable in the long term, any more than "teenager bicycle delivery system" will continue to be the ideal distribution mechanism for weather reports and sports scores.