4 ms·

> Isn't the price of housing affecting poorer citizens? Housing is so expensive that advertising couldn't put an appreciable dent in it. But I don't have any s

by jefftk 4y ago

> Isn't the price of housing affecting poorer citizens? Housing is so expensive that advertising couldn't put an appreciable dent in it. But I don't have any sort of moral objection to some company renting out apartments that are a bit cheaper but have advertisements. (And I would be opposed to outlawing them if they existed) > I am pretty sure that people would give up on 99% ad-supported content on the web quite easilly if it had even a $0.01 price point, because it is simply not worth it for most people I think you would see that as well, but mostly because of friction, not because of willingness how much value people get out of things. > We went to the Moon in 8 years This cost the US a quarter of a trillion dollars, adjusted for inflation. This was a massive investment. Almost everything has received far less investment than that; no need to posit a conspiracy! If you think it is just a matter of implementation, I would love to see a link to a proposal you would endorse? > I was not aware you can buy an ad on Hacker News There's one in the front page right now: "UPchieve (EdTech Nonprofit, YC W21) is hiring senior engineers" > Most of the content I choose to read... I can believe this for you, though that you did not notice the ads here makes me wonder whether you might be missing tasteful ads elsewhere? But it's definitely not true for most people: a web without advertising funding is a web that the vast majority of people who currently use the web would enjoy much less.

freediver 4y ago
> I can believe this for you, though that you did not notice the ads here makes me wonder whether you might be missing tasteful ads elsewhere? But it's definitely not true for most people: a web without advertising funding is a web that the vast majority of people who currently use the web would enjoy much less. "Most people" argument is generally a bad one as it takes a point in time statistic vs a first principles merit-based observation. For example "most people" enjoyed smoking in 1960s, which can at best be a point in time statistic and in no way a good argument for smoking (actually it is a terrible argument). Whether you can make a moral based argument for ads requires at least moral consistency. If you can truly say "I strongly believe ads are a driving force for the good in the society, and therefore I also choose to expose my kids to ads from a young age and would not mind them one day living in an apartment that is running ads on their walls 24/7" then you can at least hold a morally consistent position and I would applaud you for that. I of course completely disagree with this position, and am doing whatever I can to protect my kids from exposure to ads from young age by limiting TV, paying for YouTube Premium, having them use an ad-free search engine, use a browser that has built in ad blocker and so forth. I teach them that companies never give away things for free unless it benefits them in some other way, and that in life you always get what you pay for.

by jefftk 4y ago

freediver 4y ago

> I can believe this for you, though that you did not notice the ads here makes me wonder whether you might be missing tasteful ads elsewhere? But it's definitely not true for most people: a web without advertising funding is a web that the vast majority of people who currently use the web would enjoy much less. "Most people" argument is generally a bad one as it takes a point in time statistic vs a first principles merit-based observation. For example "most people" enjoyed smoking in 1960s, which can at best be a point in time statistic and in no way a good argument for smoking (actually it is a terrible argument). Whether you can make a moral based argument for ads requires at least moral consistency. If you can truly say "I strongly believe ads are a driving force for the good in the society, and therefore I also choose to expose my kids to ads from a young age and would not mind them one day living in an apartment that is running ads on their walls 24/7" then you can at least hold a morally consistent position and I would applaud you for that. I of course completely disagree with this position, and am doing whatever I can to protect my kids from exposure to ads from young age by limiting TV, paying for YouTube Premium, having them use an ad-free search engine, use a browser that has built in ad blocker and so forth. I teach them that companies never give away things for free unless it benefits them in some other way, and that in life you always get what you pay for.