4 ms·

Yes, this is a perfectly sensible stance, which of course requires you to actively pay for content instead, either through brave or some other program. I'm sur

Yes, this is a perfectly sensible stance, which of course requires you to actively pay for content instead, either through brave or some other program. I'm sure you're not just expecting content creators to make stuff for you full-time entirely for free. Ads should die, but it requires consumers to realize that they need to pay for content one way or another.

cyborgx7 7y ago
I do pay several patreon, have automatic transfer set up for two projects, and a long standing subscription to a website I'm a fan of. But people don't need to realize anything for ads to die. All they need to realize is that they should all be using ad blockers and never ever turning it off again. Being able to make people look in your direction long enough to show them something else they might spend money on is not valuable. It doesn't need to exist.
- anchpop 7y ago
  > But people don't need to realize anything for ads to die. All they need to realize is that they should all be using ad blockers and never ever turning it off again. That isn't true at all. What about when I play a youtube video on my chromecast and it shows an ad on my TV? What happens when websites draw all their content using the canvas instead of the DOM, and adblockers don't work anymore, or websites like Hulu which already make it difficult to enjoy the content while avoiding the ads.
  - cyborgx7 7y ago
    Then getting rid of ads has to stop being a technical process but a legislative instead.
  - tssva 7y ago
    Hulu makes it very easy to enjoy the content while avoiding ads. Just pay them the ad free rate to offset their lost ad revenue.
- arghwhat 7y ago
  > I do pay several patreon, have automatic transfer set up for two projects, and a long standing subscription to a website I'm a fan of. Are these websites the only websites you visit? Otherwise, you're very short on paying for the content you consume. Without ads, you have to pay the creator of every YouTube video you watch, the journalist behind every news article you read, etc. Unless the content creator is actively choosing to give it to you for free (i.e. never had any ads in the first place), then you need to pay them somehow for every bit of content you consume. With how we consume content, this will have to be pay-per-view as a day of browsing would otherwise need possibly hundreds of subscriptions. A mediator in form of Brave's "BAT" or similar is a good way to do fair pay-per-view. > But people don't need to realize anything for ads to die. All they need to realize is that they should all be using ad blockers and never ever turning it off again. No, everyone should not use ad blockers, there should be no ads. Ad blockers are a defective symptom of the decease that is ads, not a solution to the problem. > Being able to make people look in your direction long enough to show them something else they might spend money on is not valuable. It doesn't need to exist. It's important to remember that we're only fighting random ads plastered everywhere as brute-force marketing. Other forms of marketing will always exist. Having a big logo on your physical store is marketing, done to attract attention of possible customers. Showcasing their products within the store is marketing to try to make you buy them. Nothing wrong with that.
- frogpelt 7y ago
  Sorry but this is a very disingenuous stance. The only way you would find new products or services is by 20th century word of mouth or search. And search is built on a mountain of ad dollars. Are you claiming that you don't need Google?
  - cyborgx7 7y ago
    I'm claiming a search engine can exist without relying on advertising. There are other ways of discovering products and services than advertising. In fact, I'd argue that the amount of things I want I discovered through advertising is minuscule compared to the amount I discovered through direct recommendation, seeking it out myself and professional reviews (I seek out myself).
denkmoon 7y ago
"Content creation" is oversaturated. I'm willing to pay for the content I consume, but it is evidently true that most people are not - and I don't blame them. Would you really pay for a Logan Paul video? Without ad revenue, many lowest common denominator content creators (and other parasitic scenarios like "instagram influencers") go away. I fail to see that as a bad thing.

cyborgx7 7y ago

I do pay several patreon, have automatic transfer set up for two projects, and a long standing subscription to a website I'm a fan of. But people don't need to realize anything for ads to die. All they need to realize is that they should all be using ad blockers and never ever turning it off again. Being able to make people look in your direction long enough to show them something else they might spend money on is not valuable. It doesn't need to exist.

anchpop 7y ago
> But people don't need to realize anything for ads to die. All they need to realize is that they should all be using ad blockers and never ever turning it off again. That isn't true at all. What about when I play a youtube video on my chromecast and it shows an ad on my TV? What happens when websites draw all their content using the canvas instead of the DOM, and adblockers don't work anymore, or websites like Hulu which already make it difficult to enjoy the content while avoiding the ads.
- cyborgx7 7y ago
  Then getting rid of ads has to stop being a technical process but a legislative instead.
- tssva 7y ago
  Hulu makes it very easy to enjoy the content while avoiding ads. Just pay them the ad free rate to offset their lost ad revenue.
arghwhat 7y ago
> I do pay several patreon, have automatic transfer set up for two projects, and a long standing subscription to a website I'm a fan of. Are these websites the only websites you visit? Otherwise, you're very short on paying for the content you consume. Without ads, you have to pay the creator of every YouTube video you watch, the journalist behind every news article you read, etc. Unless the content creator is actively choosing to give it to you for free (i.e. never had any ads in the first place), then you need to pay them somehow for every bit of content you consume. With how we consume content, this will have to be pay-per-view as a day of browsing would otherwise need possibly hundreds of subscriptions. A mediator in form of Brave's "BAT" or similar is a good way to do fair pay-per-view. > But people don't need to realize anything for ads to die. All they need to realize is that they should all be using ad blockers and never ever turning it off again. No, everyone should not use ad blockers, there should be no ads. Ad blockers are a defective symptom of the decease that is ads, not a solution to the problem. > Being able to make people look in your direction long enough to show them something else they might spend money on is not valuable. It doesn't need to exist. It's important to remember that we're only fighting random ads plastered everywhere as brute-force marketing. Other forms of marketing will always exist. Having a big logo on your physical store is marketing, done to attract attention of possible customers. Showcasing their products within the store is marketing to try to make you buy them. Nothing wrong with that.
frogpelt 7y ago
Sorry but this is a very disingenuous stance. The only way you would find new products or services is by 20th century word of mouth or search. And search is built on a mountain of ad dollars. Are you claiming that you don't need Google?
- cyborgx7 7y ago
  I'm claiming a search engine can exist without relying on advertising. There are other ways of discovering products and services than advertising. In fact, I'd argue that the amount of things I want I discovered through advertising is minuscule compared to the amount I discovered through direct recommendation, seeking it out myself and professional reviews (I seek out myself).

denkmoon 7y ago

"Content creation" is oversaturated. I'm willing to pay for the content I consume, but it is evidently true that most people are not - and I don't blame them. Would you really pay for a Logan Paul video? Without ad revenue, many lowest common denominator content creators (and other parasitic scenarios like "instagram influencers") go away. I fail to see that as a bad thing.