3 ms·
There's no shortage of free, non ad-supported content out there. I would gladly ditch whatever ad-supported content there is, if that's what it took to get rid
by gnosis 15y ago
There's no shortage of free, non ad-supported content out there. I would gladly ditch whatever ad-supported content there is, if that's what it took to get rid of ads.
There are only a handful of industries (like movies and tv shows) which take a fair bit of money to create high quality content (though overwhelming majority of the time the money's wasted on utter garbage). Books, stories, news, and music can be created and distributed on a shoestring budget. They don't need the ad-supported creation or distribution model to thrive. The days of content shortages are practically over.
- scott_s 15y agoFrom what I can see, there is a shortage of free, non ad-supported news of the level of the NY Times. The only two venues I can think of that qualify are the BBC and NPR - both take government subsidy, and one does do infrequent pleas for money. Then there are some of the webcomics I like, which has no alternative. If I want to read Penny Arcade, substituting another comic won't help. So do you not read the NY Times, Washington Post, or any online newspaper that has ads? Do you not read print newspapers because they have ads?
- gnosis 15y agoThere's definitely some good content in the mainstream media, like the NY Times, Washington Post, Independent, Guardian, Spiegel, Japan Times, etc. But there's also a lot of propaganda and slanted journalism (witness all the disgusting cheerleading for the pro-war side during the lead up to the Iraq war). Advertisers, corporations, and the government have a corrupting influence on the media. I'd much rather the media be 100% listener-supported, like Pacifica Radio is. Then there'll be a lot less conflict of interest.
- scott_s 15y agoOkay, that's how you would like things to be, but I'm still curious about what you do now.