4 ms·

> Without ads there would be basically no free content online, and those who cannot afford content would simply go without. There was plenty of free content on

> Without ads there would be basically no free content online, and those who cannot afford content would simply go without. There was plenty of free content online before ads, in fact I claim that the web was better before ads arrived, and it is getting worse by the day. Marketeers ruined it. It happens over and over. YouTube had plenty of great content for free before monetization. Now it is becoming worse by the day, because everything is ad-related. "Influencers", etc. > Consider how much better the world has become due to easy access to information. To yank that away seems like bringing a dark age. Easy access to information is a consequence of the Internet and then the Web, both technologies having been developed by government-funded programs, respectively in the US and in the EU. Ads brought us re-centraliztion, targeting and erosion of democracy through extreme polarization and fake news. I know this is hard to believe for a lot of people here, but human beings are motivated by many things other than monetary profit.

manigandham 7y ago
No there wasn't. The commercial internet is a trillion times bigger than anything that came before and services billions of users around the world, many for free, paid for by ads. This is a tired old myth that everything was somehow better in the good old days but that's all it is.
- normalnorm 7y ago
  > No there wasn't. Yes there was. Go to archive.org and check for yourself. > The commercial internet is a trillion times bigger than anything that came before and services billions of users around the world, many for free, paid for by ads. Bigger doesn't mean better. The web is now flooded with malicious and manipulative content. The ads pay for that content, while taxpayers and consumers pay for the infrastructure that actually makes the Internet possible. Ads pay to keep the web centralized, they don't pay for what makes the web possible. > This is a tired old myth that everything was somehow better in the good old days but that's all it is. There is indeed, but notice that I did not say that "everything was somehow better in the good old days". I made a very specific comment about a very specific topic. My comment: there was plenty of quality content on the web before ads arrived. Ads made the web worse. Argue against this if you like, but not about things I did not claim.
  - manigandham 7y ago
    What does internet infrastructure have to do with ads? We're talking about content, and ads are the subsidy that lets billions consume for free. That there's more content for more people across more channels is objectively true, and advertising pays for much of it. You seem to be conflating ad UX with economics.
    - normalnorm 7y ago
      > What does internet infrastructure have to do with ads? It is the medium that makes the ads possible, and it is payed by you and me. > We're talking about content, and ads are the subsidy that lets billions consume for free. And I have been telling you every step of the way that there was good content before the ads arrived. > That there's more content for more people across more channels is objectively true, That is hardly surprising. There was no moment in the history of the web when the total amount of content available was not increasing. This was already the case before the ads. Did it grown more than it would have without ads? Maybe. Is it better? I don't think so. > and advertising pays for much of it. And yet here you are, consuming content that someone created for free (me) in a platform without ads (Hacker News). So it doesn't pay for all of it, and even you, at least sometimes, seem to prefer the non-ad-funded corner. > You seem to be conflating ad UX with economics. Sorry, I have no idea what you mean by this.
- apostate111 7y ago
  Yes, there was. The Internet was most interesting from 1999-2005, there were plenty of good searchable websites from private individuals or universities. Literally the only site that is better now than back then is YouTube with an ad-blocker. Everything else has deteriorated: Google (search) is worse, Ebay is worse, Amazon is worse, banking sites are worse. Heck, even Java stock tickers from 2000 were better than now. The art of presenting information in a meaningful way has been lost entirely.
  - normalnorm 7y ago
    Exactly, but most people here are unwilling to listen to any of this, because their salaries are funded by the very thing that has ruined the web - advertisement.

manigandham 7y ago

No there wasn't. The commercial internet is a trillion times bigger than anything that came before and services billions of users around the world, many for free, paid for by ads. This is a tired old myth that everything was somehow better in the good old days but that's all it is.

normalnorm 7y ago
> No there wasn't. Yes there was. Go to archive.org and check for yourself. > The commercial internet is a trillion times bigger than anything that came before and services billions of users around the world, many for free, paid for by ads. Bigger doesn't mean better. The web is now flooded with malicious and manipulative content. The ads pay for that content, while taxpayers and consumers pay for the infrastructure that actually makes the Internet possible. Ads pay to keep the web centralized, they don't pay for what makes the web possible. > This is a tired old myth that everything was somehow better in the good old days but that's all it is. There is indeed, but notice that I did not say that "everything was somehow better in the good old days". I made a very specific comment about a very specific topic. My comment: there was plenty of quality content on the web before ads arrived. Ads made the web worse. Argue against this if you like, but not about things I did not claim.
- manigandham 7y ago
  What does internet infrastructure have to do with ads? We're talking about content, and ads are the subsidy that lets billions consume for free. That there's more content for more people across more channels is objectively true, and advertising pays for much of it. You seem to be conflating ad UX with economics.
  - normalnorm 7y ago
    > What does internet infrastructure have to do with ads? It is the medium that makes the ads possible, and it is payed by you and me. > We're talking about content, and ads are the subsidy that lets billions consume for free. And I have been telling you every step of the way that there was good content before the ads arrived. > That there's more content for more people across more channels is objectively true, That is hardly surprising. There was no moment in the history of the web when the total amount of content available was not increasing. This was already the case before the ads. Did it grown more than it would have without ads? Maybe. Is it better? I don't think so. > and advertising pays for much of it. And yet here you are, consuming content that someone created for free (me) in a platform without ads (Hacker News). So it doesn't pay for all of it, and even you, at least sometimes, seem to prefer the non-ad-funded corner. > You seem to be conflating ad UX with economics. Sorry, I have no idea what you mean by this.
apostate111 7y ago
Yes, there was. The Internet was most interesting from 1999-2005, there were plenty of good searchable websites from private individuals or universities. Literally the only site that is better now than back then is YouTube with an ad-blocker. Everything else has deteriorated: Google (search) is worse, Ebay is worse, Amazon is worse, banking sites are worse. Heck, even Java stock tickers from 2000 were better than now. The art of presenting information in a meaningful way has been lost entirely.
- normalnorm 7y ago
  Exactly, but most people here are unwilling to listen to any of this, because their salaries are funded by the very thing that has ruined the web - advertisement.