3 ms·

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 c

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.
        marcus_holmes 6y ago
        In Australia, the ABC is just funded out of general taxation, with no specific tax for it. That works a lot better. Triple-J (their "youth" music radio station) is an Australian cultural mainstay (or was; its relevance is fading), and I don't think anyone actually minds that some of their tax goes to support it. Except the usual right-wing conspiracy dicks who are mad that the ABC doesn't publish their shite.

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.
      - marcus_holmes 6y ago
        In Australia, the ABC is just funded out of general taxation, with no specific tax for it. That works a lot better. Triple-J (their "youth" music radio station) is an Australian cultural mainstay (or was; its relevance is fading), and I don't think anyone actually minds that some of their tax goes to support it. Except the usual right-wing conspiracy dicks who are mad that the ABC doesn't publish their shite.