3 ms·
it would also kick poor people off the internet
by viro 5y ago
it 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.
- goodpoint 5y agoRepeating this point ad nauseam does not make it true.
- viro 5y agoyou know what makes it true? common sense. You're detached from reality if you don't think this will now have a massive negative effects on poor people.
- 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.