4 ms·
On the contrary, people pay for Netflix. People also pay for the ad-free upgrade to Hulu. Speaking to text websites, people are also using Brave, though I don't
by andrewprock 7y ago
On the contrary, people pay for Netflix. People also pay for the ad-free upgrade to Hulu. Speaking to text websites, people are also using Brave, though I don't know how that experiment will work out in the end.
- Someone1234 7y agoI think Brave is on the right track, but I am skeptical the kind of users that are aggressively anti-ad are going to like seeing ads straight in their notifications. I'd prefer to just pay Brave e.g. $10/month and have it give out that money to sites I visit.
- csunbird 7y agoWhen it is reasonably priced, people will pay for legal alternatives. If there was a Netflix for paid websites, which would provide subscriptions in a convenient way to all websites in bulk, people would pay for that. Current options are: > Manage subscriptions of 10 plus websites manually > Pay by your privacy It is clear that both options suck, so people opt in to ad blockers instead. Legal options are just overpriced for the demand.
- kevin_thibedeau 7y agoAd blocking is not illegal.
- hombre_fatal 7y agoI think we need a solution for websites that aren't as unanimously popular as Netflix and Hulu. It's no surprise to me that the biggest entertainment services online can attract a subscription. But it would be a damn shame if those are the only services that can make much money. Just more and more centralization of content. People often respond to this with "well, hobbyists make plenty of content for free," but the thing is that we benefit when our favorite hobbyists can make money from the craft and produce more work for us to enjoy instead of waiting around for their charity. Though the growth of Patreon is a good step in the right direction, culturally. It shows a growing willingness to indeed pay content producers directly with small recurring transactions.