5 ms·
Then who pays for 99% of the websites on the internet? hosting isn't free.
by viro 5y ago
Then who pays for 99% of the websites on the internet? hosting isn't free.
- bediger4000 5y agoWe'd be better off without the ad-supported web sites. Twitter, facebook, pinterest, ad-supported web sites centralized something that was arguably better when decentralized. Every web site should be artisanal, a labor of love, like a lot of the better blogs, or subscription based. Content wouldn't be homogenized for mass consumption.
- viro 5y agoyou don't seem to understand... This would have the exact opposite result.. I would pay for a Twitter and YouTube sub and every other website could fuck all the way off. I'm not paying separately for 40 other random sites.
- bediger4000 5y agoGood! Consumer choice in action, Invisible Hand of the Marketplace would help weed out the weak or harmful businesses. Ad supported web sites can be really harmful. Direct, monetary feedback would allow us to have more say in things.
- viro 5y agoit would also kick poor people off the internet
- lp0_on_fire 5y agoBy that logic the status quo says poor people can only participate on the internet if they subject themselves to ever-increasing digital surveillance under the guise of "advertising"
- viro 5y agoThats a rather fancy way to say. poor people can't afford to pay a sub for every ad supported site they use.
- gpm 5y agoI don't think it would, anymore than poor people are already kicked off the internet by the cost of devices and an ISP. Some of the best parts of the internet are already free despite the option to monetize them with ads (e.g. wikipedia), if ads weren't an option, I think you would see many more spaces like that popping up. It's cheap enough to run a server that people frequently do so without expecting compensation. Not everything needs to be paid.
- netr0ute 5y agoThe sites that actually have something good to say will never block out poor people by virtue of their owners being smart enough to factor this into their costs.
- goodpoint 5y agoThe very opposite: 99% of Internet use is to consume/download content rather than produce/upload. Ads and heavy websites are slow and expensive to browse for half of human population due to poor connectivity.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- tomjen3 5y agoIf we would all be better of if facebook etc didn't exist, doesn't it stand to reason that poor people would also be better of? Open street map and wikipedia runs of of donations/free labor so I don't think poor people would be kicked of those. Google would presumably come with your internet subscription, so that would be factored in for most libraries where the poor would access the internet.
- nonameiguess 5y agoI believe the claim is this wouldn't happen. You wouldn't need to separately pay for 40 sites if they were content to have a few thousand users each like the old days. Hosting that really is close enough to free that people would still do it. Keep communities small. You don't need to network with 3 billion people.
- fsflover 5y ago> Keep communities small. You don't need to network with 3 billion people. With federated platforms like Mastodon, PeerTube, PixelFed, you technically can network with 3 billion people, despite the lack of the central server.
- nonameiguess 5y agoOf course, and that's another option, too. Make truly distributed applications that don't rely upon servers you own serving everyone, and you pay no hosting costs at all.
- pmoriarty 5y ago" Then who pays for 99% of the websites on the internet? hosting isn't free." Those who can afford it could pay their own hosting fees, and donations, governments, and philanthropic foundations could subsidize the cost of hosting for those who can't. Most businesses could of course pay for their own hosting, and even now don't operate on "free" (ad-supported) hosting services. So, yeah, I'm not really worried about the survival of the internet if unsolicited ads were banned. There's already a glut of content being created every day, and that's unlikely to be significantly reduced.
- nicbou 5y agoI think you underestimate how much of the useful Internet is supported by ads, including affiliate links and the like. The Internet isn't entirely run by volunteers with a hosting budget. Not by a long stretch.
- andrewnicolalde 5y agoWhy do those ads need to be so aggressively targeted? I don’t mind ads related to the primary topic of the website for example. I might actually find those useful! What I have a problem with is the invasion of privacy created by highly personalized, persistent profiling of my life for the purpose of selling things to me.
- nicbou 5y agoYou moved the goalpost
- andrewnicolalde 5y agoI’m not GP.
- goodpoint 5y agoWe are already paying for websites right now. We pay for ads when we buy products and services. Also we pay ISPs who pay carriers who pay for peering with popular networks.
- vincent-toups 5y agoHonestly, I'd be fine with 99% of the internet going away.
- Guest42 5y agoI think I saw some stats showing that beyond the top 1 percent of websites, the usage goes way way down meaning they wouldn’t cost much to maintain. As for the 1 percent, there would probably be various solutions depending on the situation and more ethical ways to advertise. I’d pay for a non-tracking YouTube, email, news, and a small fee to access my banking online.
- swiley 5y agoMy personal website is hosted by: Microsoft who lets people use the github cdn for free if they're not obnoxious about it. and my mail server on linode which I'm paying for anyway. Web hosting is just not that expensive unless your doing stuff like video streaming.
- 0x5FC3 5y agoIs it like a custom setup on a linode vps? Or does linode offer some kind of managed solution? I’ve always wanted to run my own email setup but then, just seems like too much hassle. How is it going for you?
- swiley 5y agoI've run my own email since I was ~18 (I'm 27 now.) Currently I use OpenSMTP with a custom patch for the address parser. My only real issue is that I'm never able to send mail to hotmail (no one seems able to do that so often the users understand.) Otherwise once you have dkim and whatnot set up and you keep things updated it's not a big deal.
- u8mybrownies 5y agoDoesn’t matter. Better to pay explicitly than by being manipulated to pay via the things you’re manipulated into
- stubish 5y agoWeb sites used to exist before advertising was pervasive and will continue to exist after. By removing all the ad funded businesses squatting in the space, we make room for alternatives. Just think - forums run by enthusiasts rather than people who think they can make money off of enthusiasts. Web sites designed to maximize knowledge transfer, rather than maximize rage and web traffic. It can certainly be free or nearly so to host a web site that doesn't need to maximize engagement. They won't be as slick, but they don't need to be because they are not trying to sell you anything. Or... who knows, lets see what people come up with! Its sure to be better than the status quo, which many of us are opting out of with ad-blockers and privacy plugins and simply going to alternative sources.
- lithos 5y agoBack to mechanics like AdWords where it’s based on the content you’re consuming.