I don't get the objection. A company providing an online service has to be paid somehow. It's either going to be paid by subscriptions, or by advertisers. The p

I don't get the objection. A company providing an online service has to be paid somehow. It's either going to be paid by subscriptions, or by advertisers. The people have spoken: the ad-supported model is nearly universal, the paywall model is rare and unpopular. I don't see how Google and Twitter are guilty for giving people what they want. I am sure Google and Facebook would have gladly avoided the whole advertising rigmarole if they had been able to charge for their services; but the fact is, Facebook would have about 150 users now if they did that. I personally may or may not like this situation, but this is how it works. Speaking of moral imperatives, I will say one thing for the ad-supported model: it opens up the internet to developing world markets in which people would not be able to use paid services.