3 ms·

> Despite the downsides, there’s not really anything better and more accessible than ads. Ads may be a "better" way for a website owner to to make money, but t

> Despite the downsides, there’s not really anything better and more accessible than ads. Ads may be a "better" way for a website owner to to make money, but they do nothing at all to promote quality content, or improve the quality of a platform. It's not as if "knowing what a person is looking at" does either of those things either. I think creating a platform for useful and engaging communities/communication and getting rich by exploiting your userbase are opposing interests and for major social media platforms the only reason they attempt to do the first thing is so that they can do the second.

endisneigh 5y ago
They’re really not. The problem with counter points like these is that it assumes people will create content for free. If money isn’t a motivator then ads aren’t necessary either way. If it is, ads again are really the only way that’s accessible. Ads to help promote quality content as implemented on most sites.
- autoexec 5y ago
  > They’re really not. The problem with counter points like these is that it assumes people will create content for free. It's no assumption. Anyone who was around in the early days of the internet saw it happen over and over again with their own eyes. Even now people start internet forums, online groups, and passion projects with zero interest in making money off of it. I couldn't count the number of services I've seen start out that way. Some do reluctantly add ads later on to help cover expenses once the site/service gets too popular too afford (sometimes removing them again the moment it's no longer needed). Some get bought up by other companies who are only interested in making money. Some get abandoned or cave in to larger sites (reddit and facebook groups have killed off most of the small internet forums that used to thrive). Some are still around. The one thing we can absolutely say about the internet is that people will create content for it and will develop and maintain spaces for others to share that content. In between the ads every social media platform is filled with user generated content for which the creator was uncompensated in anything but internet points, shares, and likes. Reddit's moderators aren't paid to help maintain the communities that make Reddit money. Long before social media people flocked to Geocities, to usenet, and to IRC, and produced massive amounts of content without looking for a buck. Before that they'd dial into a BBS or participate in mailing lists. People want to be heard, to help share their passions, and to hear others. The internet was first and because it was thriving and growing ads, and then surveillance capitalism, showed up after the fact and infested it.
  - endisneigh 5y ago
    I’m not really seeing your point - the type of internet you’re describing can still be trivially used. Most don’t care for it because the content under ads is superior, which is my point. Even this site we are both engaging on is a glorified ad.

endisneigh 5y ago

They’re really not. The problem with counter points like these is that it assumes people will create content for free. If money isn’t a motivator then ads aren’t necessary either way. If it is, ads again are really the only way that’s accessible. Ads to help promote quality content as implemented on most sites.

autoexec 5y ago
> They’re really not. The problem with counter points like these is that it assumes people will create content for free. It's no assumption. Anyone who was around in the early days of the internet saw it happen over and over again with their own eyes. Even now people start internet forums, online groups, and passion projects with zero interest in making money off of it. I couldn't count the number of services I've seen start out that way. Some do reluctantly add ads later on to help cover expenses once the site/service gets too popular too afford (sometimes removing them again the moment it's no longer needed). Some get bought up by other companies who are only interested in making money. Some get abandoned or cave in to larger sites (reddit and facebook groups have killed off most of the small internet forums that used to thrive). Some are still around. The one thing we can absolutely say about the internet is that people will create content for it and will develop and maintain spaces for others to share that content. In between the ads every social media platform is filled with user generated content for which the creator was uncompensated in anything but internet points, shares, and likes. Reddit's moderators aren't paid to help maintain the communities that make Reddit money. Long before social media people flocked to Geocities, to usenet, and to IRC, and produced massive amounts of content without looking for a buck. Before that they'd dial into a BBS or participate in mailing lists. People want to be heard, to help share their passions, and to hear others. The internet was first and because it was thriving and growing ads, and then surveillance capitalism, showed up after the fact and infested it.
- endisneigh 5y ago
  I’m not really seeing your point - the type of internet you’re describing can still be trivially used. Most don’t care for it because the content under ads is superior, which is my point. Even this site we are both engaging on is a glorified ad.