“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” > I said above, there are no externalities. A po

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” > I said above, there are no externalities. A point that you are missing is one that is often overlooked and deserves a proper essay, but to keep it short: the quality of the products is affected by the business model. I contend that ads themselves are the waste, but it is not just those directly watching the ads that suffer from it. When a service becomes funded by ads, the best metric for quality (customers willing to pay for the product) gets separated from the best metric for its sustainability (revenue and profitability). This is why a large part of why journalism is horrible today: any news editor has to prioritize what gives them eyeballs over "quality reporting", so no matter how many actual subscribers a newspaper still has, it is still going to be over-polarized, play to outrage culture and more "infotainment" than actual journalism. More examples? - Spotify and the Joe Rogan drama. Whether you agree/disagree and support/disapprove of whatever he is talking about on his show, would you agree that this whole thing would be a nothingburger if his audience were limited to the people willing to pay money to hear him? - The whole of the sports industry. Remove "broadcast rights" and all the advertising that comes with it, and there would not be NBA kowtowing to China, or FIFA pushing a World Cup built in Qatar on the back of slave labor, or F-1 in bed with the Saudis, etc, etc. Streaming services are already bad in the sense that they rather cater to quantity over quality, but at least the fact that people have to pay something is some kind of filter on "minimum quality". With an ad-funded model this filter is completely removed and everything starts getting produced for the lowest common denominator.