3 ms·

How about making content that people actually feel like they obtain value in their lives from. They'd pay for that. Instead we have the majority of content crea

How about making content that people actually feel like they obtain value in their lives from. They'd pay for that. Instead we have the majority of content creators engaged in an arms race to hijack your attention and produce the most outrageous, rather than best, content possible because more outrage = more eyeballs = more ads.

TheIronMark 5y ago
> How about making content that people actually feel like they obtain value in their lives from. Not believing the content has value does not actually give you the right to get it for free.
- skummetmaelk 5y ago
  That's not my point. My point is that content has evolved steadily into becoming something that a great deal of the population actually feels bad about consuming. They feel bad about losing hours on Youtube clicking video after video, but they can't stop because their brains have been hijacked by the fine interplay between algorithm and content creator driving this madness. Nobody would pay for this content if they had to. They don't event _want_ to watch it really. If content platforms were forced to have a subscriber model. People would only pay for what they actually _want_ access to.
- commoner 5y ago
  When the content provider offers the content for free, the viewer obtains the right to consume any portions of the content they want for free. If a website wants to require the viewer to consume all of the content when they view it, they can do that in their terms of service, though it might not be legally enforceable. Most sites don't.
Workaccount2 5y ago
No, they wouldn't pay for that. This is a dumb myth that people use to brush off their guilt. If something can be taken for free with no repercussion, most people will take it for free. We're in a feedback loop where content is being pulled towards the lowest common denominator of people who don't ad-block, which is a terrible uninformed click-bait hellhole. You can ad block, I do myself (with a pretty big whitelist), but understand that if you are not contributuing (money or ad views) your opinion of the internet is irrelevant. Start paying, then complain as a paying customer.
- skummetmaelk 5y ago
  I support several content creators on Patreon because I greatly value their content and want them to continue making it. I realise not everyone is in a position to do so and that is fine. > If something can be taken for free with no repercussion, most people will take it for free. This is clearly not true. Netflix found massive success even though it was, and still is, incredibly easy to pirate everything you want to watch. Indie games with poor or non-existent DRM make money on Steam even though pirate copies exist. Yes, of course there is a loss to piracy. Is that loss greater than what surveillance capitalism is pushing onto us? I doubt it, but you may think otherwise.
- nescioquid 5y ago
  Many sites on the internet provide little more than infrastructure and moderation for the content provided by users of that site. I think every one of those users has a relevant opinion about the internet itself whether or not they are forking over money or being subjected to advertising. The internet did not spring into being for the sake of ad-tech.
- foxfluff 5y ago
  As long as it is possible to make money with ads, the web will be full of SEO-optimized trash, clickbait, and other worthless "content" full of ads, and it will drown out anything of quality. If you're giving them ad views, you're partly responsible for and contributing towards the sorry state of the internet. Start blocking ads, and ask everyone you know to do the same.

TheIronMark 5y ago

> How about making content that people actually feel like they obtain value in their lives from. Not believing the content has value does not actually give you the right to get it for free.

skummetmaelk 5y ago
That's not my point. My point is that content has evolved steadily into becoming something that a great deal of the population actually feels bad about consuming. They feel bad about losing hours on Youtube clicking video after video, but they can't stop because their brains have been hijacked by the fine interplay between algorithm and content creator driving this madness. Nobody would pay for this content if they had to. They don't event _want_ to watch it really. If content platforms were forced to have a subscriber model. People would only pay for what they actually _want_ access to.
commoner 5y ago
When the content provider offers the content for free, the viewer obtains the right to consume any portions of the content they want for free. If a website wants to require the viewer to consume all of the content when they view it, they can do that in their terms of service, though it might not be legally enforceable. Most sites don't.

Workaccount2 5y ago

No, they wouldn't pay for that. This is a dumb myth that people use to brush off their guilt. If something can be taken for free with no repercussion, most people will take it for free. We're in a feedback loop where content is being pulled towards the lowest common denominator of people who don't ad-block, which is a terrible uninformed click-bait hellhole. You can ad block, I do myself (with a pretty big whitelist), but understand that if you are not contributuing (money or ad views) your opinion of the internet is irrelevant. Start paying, then complain as a paying customer.

skummetmaelk 5y ago
I support several content creators on Patreon because I greatly value their content and want them to continue making it. I realise not everyone is in a position to do so and that is fine. > If something can be taken for free with no repercussion, most people will take it for free. This is clearly not true. Netflix found massive success even though it was, and still is, incredibly easy to pirate everything you want to watch. Indie games with poor or non-existent DRM make money on Steam even though pirate copies exist. Yes, of course there is a loss to piracy. Is that loss greater than what surveillance capitalism is pushing onto us? I doubt it, but you may think otherwise.
nescioquid 5y ago
Many sites on the internet provide little more than infrastructure and moderation for the content provided by users of that site. I think every one of those users has a relevant opinion about the internet itself whether or not they are forking over money or being subjected to advertising. The internet did not spring into being for the sake of ad-tech.
foxfluff 5y ago
As long as it is possible to make money with ads, the web will be full of SEO-optimized trash, clickbait, and other worthless "content" full of ads, and it will drown out anything of quality. If you're giving them ad views, you're partly responsible for and contributing towards the sorry state of the internet. Start blocking ads, and ask everyone you know to do the same.