2 ms·

And how could it not have become ad-driven? Choices have consequences. We made a choice (free), and now we live with the consequences (ad models).

by ethbr0 4y ago

JohnFen 4y ago
Well, that there was a rich and vibrant internet before advertising existed on it seems to indicate it's entirely possible. But I don't think we chose ad-supported. The ads came in before anyone was seriously thinking about how to charge people for things. The decision was made for us. And even if we did pay cash money, the ads would have come anyway if history is any indication. So perhaps the degradation of the internet in this way was inevitable. Still, it's a real loss and a real shame.
- ethbr0 4y ago
  The academic, and then niche, Internet was always a fundamentally different dynamic than once you let everyone in. Eternal September etc. I'm not sure post-mass market the "early Internet" was still a stable outcome. I'd agree that we (the users) certainly didn't chose ad-supported. At least in any more specific way than saying "I like free things more than not free things" ("we" as in a majority). And I don't think pay-for-things or any other not-ads model was fundamentally flawed... it just wasn't superior or even at parity at the time that ads took off (i.e. DoubleClick/AdWords)... and so we got ads. And I'm not arguing that we should have ads! No one would be happier than me if they disappeared from the face of the Internet tomorrow, at least in massively-tracked form. But I do think moving past them requires an honest appraisal of why they exist -- people, on the whole, are cheapskates.
remram 4y ago
We're in a thread about social networks, so the content is still provided for free by users while the host company tries to monetize. You can't be making the point that providing content for free wasn't sustainable...

2 ms·

And how could it not have become ad-driven? Choices have consequences. We made a choice (free), and now we live with the consequences (ad models).

by ethbr0 4y ago

And how could it not have become ad-driven? Choices have consequences. We made a choice (free), and now we live with the consequences (ad models).

JohnFen 4y ago
Well, that there was a rich and vibrant internet before advertising existed on it seems to indicate it's entirely possible. But I don't think we chose ad-supported. The ads came in before anyone was seriously thinking about how to charge people for things. The decision was made for us. And even if we did pay cash money, the ads would have come anyway if history is any indication. So perhaps the degradation of the internet in this way was inevitable. Still, it's a real loss and a real shame.
- ethbr0 4y ago
  The academic, and then niche, Internet was always a fundamentally different dynamic than once you let everyone in. Eternal September etc. I'm not sure post-mass market the "early Internet" was still a stable outcome. I'd agree that we (the users) certainly didn't chose ad-supported. At least in any more specific way than saying "I like free things more than not free things" ("we" as in a majority). And I don't think pay-for-things or any other not-ads model was fundamentally flawed... it just wasn't superior or even at parity at the time that ads took off (i.e. DoubleClick/AdWords)... and so we got ads. And I'm not arguing that we should have ads! No one would be happier than me if they disappeared from the face of the Internet tomorrow, at least in massively-tracked form. But I do think moving past them requires an honest appraisal of why they exist -- people, on the whole, are cheapskates.
remram 4y ago
We're in a thread about social networks, so the content is still provided for free by users while the host company tries to monetize. You can't be making the point that providing content for free wasn't sustainable...