4 ms·

How should we pay for the internet, if not via ads? Serious question here. Somehow the infrastructure and content must get paid for, or it will deteriorate and

How should we pay for the internet, if not via ads? Serious question here. Somehow the infrastructure and content must get paid for, or it will deteriorate and go away. If not via ads, what's a better plan?

Nifty3929 4y ago
And also - Lots of folks are worried about protecting our personal information from advertisers, which will cause the ads we see (if we see them) to be less relevant, and therefore less valuable. Which in turn means that we need to see more of those less-valuable ads to pay for the resources we are consuming. Wouldn't it be better to see MORE relevant, more valuable, and overall fewer ads?
danuker 4y ago
I pay my ISP. That should ensure I can communicate with anyone else paying their ISP. As for content monetization, I host my own site without ads, solely to spread my own views. I take enjoyment in that. I watch YouTube with uBlock Origin on my laptop, and NewPipe on my phone. If I were forced to watch ads, I'd stop watching. And I wouldn't pay for YouTube, because I believe it is much larger than its competition, and don't want to contribute to a monopoly. I pay for Nebula, and when the creator also posts there, that is where I watch their videos.
antonyh 4y ago
Ads don't pay for the Internet, they pay for content. The problem is that's it's highly intrusive and mostly unimaginative leading to a negative sentiment. It's also pushing content that I haven't asked for, products or whatever. I'd rather pay cash money for the app that is being advertised, than pay-per-view for ads promoting a free app I'll never download, which itself is funded by more adverts.
- Nifty3929 4y ago
  "Ads don't pay for the Internet, they pay for content." Not quite sure I agree with this. Who pays for all the routers and servers and CDN and whatnot? I think you mean that you pay for your CONNECTION to the internet, which I agree is true, but there's a lot more "plumbing" that goes into it besides the content generation itself, or your internet connection: <ISP> - <LOTS OF REALLY EXPENSSIVE STUFF> - <CONTENT> "I'd rather pay cash money for the app that is being advertised" Me too! But I think we're in the minority. When I ask most people about whether they'd pay for content to avoid ads, they say "no, why would I pay when it's free?" "than pay-per-view for ads..." - Actually I'd LOVE to have literal pay-per-view for content. Can I pay 1 cent or 5 cents or whatever to read that article without any ads or trackers and such? I think that would be a great experience - but again, I think I'm alone on that.
joenathanone 4y ago
If ads didn't take over the whole screen and use outright false or misleading statements, or attempt to phish information or install viruses, then I don't think most would have a problem. Ads these days are intrusive to the point that certain websites and apps are rendered completely useless by them.
birksherty 4y ago
We already pay for internet.

Nifty3929 4y ago

And also - Lots of folks are worried about protecting our personal information from advertisers, which will cause the ads we see (if we see them) to be less relevant, and therefore less valuable. Which in turn means that we need to see more of those less-valuable ads to pay for the resources we are consuming. Wouldn't it be better to see MORE relevant, more valuable, and overall fewer ads?

danuker 4y ago

I pay my ISP. That should ensure I can communicate with anyone else paying their ISP. As for content monetization, I host my own site without ads, solely to spread my own views. I take enjoyment in that. I watch YouTube with uBlock Origin on my laptop, and NewPipe on my phone. If I were forced to watch ads, I'd stop watching. And I wouldn't pay for YouTube, because I believe it is much larger than its competition, and don't want to contribute to a monopoly. I pay for Nebula, and when the creator also posts there, that is where I watch their videos.

antonyh 4y ago

Ads don't pay for the Internet, they pay for content. The problem is that's it's highly intrusive and mostly unimaginative leading to a negative sentiment. It's also pushing content that I haven't asked for, products or whatever. I'd rather pay cash money for the app that is being advertised, than pay-per-view for ads promoting a free app I'll never download, which itself is funded by more adverts.

Nifty3929 4y ago
"Ads don't pay for the Internet, they pay for content." Not quite sure I agree with this. Who pays for all the routers and servers and CDN and whatnot? I think you mean that you pay for your CONNECTION to the internet, which I agree is true, but there's a lot more "plumbing" that goes into it besides the content generation itself, or your internet connection: <ISP> - <LOTS OF REALLY EXPENSSIVE STUFF> - <CONTENT> "I'd rather pay cash money for the app that is being advertised" Me too! But I think we're in the minority. When I ask most people about whether they'd pay for content to avoid ads, they say "no, why would I pay when it's free?" "than pay-per-view for ads..." - Actually I'd LOVE to have literal pay-per-view for content. Can I pay 1 cent or 5 cents or whatever to read that article without any ads or trackers and such? I think that would be a great experience - but again, I think I'm alone on that.

joenathanone 4y ago

If ads didn't take over the whole screen and use outright false or misleading statements, or attempt to phish information or install viruses, then I don't think most would have a problem. Ads these days are intrusive to the point that certain websites and apps are rendered completely useless by them.

birksherty 4y ago

We already pay for internet.