4 ms·

Taking away that "free stuff" is not without consequence either. Now people without means can't read the news, watch tv, connect with friends and family online,

Taking away that "free stuff" is not without consequence either. Now people without means can't read the news, watch tv, connect with friends and family online, play casual games, etc. Are ads more evil than taking away free access for those without the means to pay?

snarf21 6y ago
Yes
- megaman821 6y ago
  Well, I am sure millions of less fortunate people in this world are glad you have no say in deciding these things. Millions of people using Whatsapp to stay in contact with their friends and family for free, many who couldn't afford to pay for the service, but shut it down because snarf21 saw an ad he didn't like.
  - marcus_holmes 6y ago
    yeah but we had email before that. It wasn't "free" but it was cheap and worked across everything and no-one stole your personal data.
    - umeshunni 6y ago
      By we, if you mean a few rich people in the west, sure.
      - marcus_holmes 6y ago
        No, I don't. Poor people in (most parts of) the developing world have better internet access and more free stuff with it than we do in the West. Email is dirt cheap to provide. We probably all still get a free email account with our ISP, except none of us bother because gmail.
  - nimih 6y ago
    If only there were a way to redistribute resources and provide services to the less fortunate without relying on the whims and benevolence of predatory multinational corporations.
    - 6510 6y ago
      Its one of those things that we can have by simply wanting it. Ironically the predatory corporations would thrive under such new deal.
- spaced-out 6y ago
  And no more radio stations? How will they survive without ads?
marcus_holmes 6y ago
I don't know. I've never lived in a world where this stuff wasn't paid for by advertising. I think "means to pay" is relative - Cambodian tuk-tuk drivers get cheaper, better internet access than Berliners. And they watch YouTube on it. If they didn't have access to YouTube for free there would be a huge market in producing Cambodian content for them to watch, priced appropriately for that market.
- spaced-out 6y ago
  Before Youtube, many people in that part of the world listened to the radio. How will radio stations survive without ads?
  - marcus_holmes 6y ago
    Good question. That's a broadcast medium, though. In the UK, Australia and Germany (amongst others - these are only the countries I've lived in that do this) there is a public broadcaster supported by a tax. It's not popular - irrelevant and annoying in the internet age. But it clearly solved the "how do you get broadcast media without adverts" problem.
    - samoa42 6y ago
      > It's not popular relatively speaking, no >irrelevant and annoying in the internet age disagree strongly
      - marcus_holmes 6y ago
        I meant the business model, not the content. German collection of the tax is incredibly unpopular, especially for those of us who don't even have a television.
        samoa42 6y ago
        true, would be more sensible to make it a "real" federal tax instead of collection via a obnoxious semi-private entity. while i have not owned a tv for the last two decades i still sometimes consume their content via internet or car-radio and would probably miss it if it wasnt available.
throwaway2245 6y ago
> can't read the news Alternative potential consequence: it allows indie news publishers to become more competitive and visible against billionaire-backed business with huge advertising powers. > [can't] connect with friends and family online same - if Facebook goes under, that's a positive network effect to smaller competitors. (there are plenty of free ways to connect that don't depend on advertising)

snarf21 6y ago

Yes

megaman821 6y ago
Well, I am sure millions of less fortunate people in this world are glad you have no say in deciding these things. Millions of people using Whatsapp to stay in contact with their friends and family for free, many who couldn't afford to pay for the service, but shut it down because snarf21 saw an ad he didn't like.
- marcus_holmes 6y ago
  yeah but we had email before that. It wasn't "free" but it was cheap and worked across everything and no-one stole your personal data.
  - umeshunni 6y ago
    By we, if you mean a few rich people in the west, sure.
    - marcus_holmes 6y ago
      No, I don't. Poor people in (most parts of) the developing world have better internet access and more free stuff with it than we do in the West. Email is dirt cheap to provide. We probably all still get a free email account with our ISP, except none of us bother because gmail.
- nimih 6y ago
  If only there were a way to redistribute resources and provide services to the less fortunate without relying on the whims and benevolence of predatory multinational corporations.
  - 6510 6y ago
    Its one of those things that we can have by simply wanting it. Ironically the predatory corporations would thrive under such new deal.
spaced-out 6y ago
And no more radio stations? How will they survive without ads?

marcus_holmes 6y ago

I don't know. I've never lived in a world where this stuff wasn't paid for by advertising. I think "means to pay" is relative - Cambodian tuk-tuk drivers get cheaper, better internet access than Berliners. And they watch YouTube on it. If they didn't have access to YouTube for free there would be a huge market in producing Cambodian content for them to watch, priced appropriately for that market.

spaced-out 6y ago
Before Youtube, many people in that part of the world listened to the radio. How will radio stations survive without ads?
- marcus_holmes 6y ago
  Good question. That's a broadcast medium, though. In the UK, Australia and Germany (amongst others - these are only the countries I've lived in that do this) there is a public broadcaster supported by a tax. It's not popular - irrelevant and annoying in the internet age. But it clearly solved the "how do you get broadcast media without adverts" problem.
  - samoa42 6y ago
    > It's not popular relatively speaking, no >irrelevant and annoying in the internet age disagree strongly
    - marcus_holmes 6y ago
      I meant the business model, not the content. German collection of the tax is incredibly unpopular, especially for those of us who don't even have a television.
      - samoa42 6y ago
        true, would be more sensible to make it a "real" federal tax instead of collection via a obnoxious semi-private entity. while i have not owned a tv for the last two decades i still sometimes consume their content via internet or car-radio and would probably miss it if it wasnt available.

throwaway2245 6y ago

> can't read the news Alternative potential consequence: it allows indie news publishers to become more competitive and visible against billionaire-backed business with huge advertising powers. > [can't] connect with friends and family online same - if Facebook goes under, that's a positive network effect to smaller competitors. (there are plenty of free ways to connect that don't depend on advertising)