4 ms·

If it were possible for everybody to block all advertising all the time, it would kill today's internet more effectively than SOPA.

naner 15y ago
If all ad-supported sites went down tomorrow, the Internet would still work fine and there would still be content. Just not as much.
- georgemcbay 15y ago
  Considering that both Google and Bing are "ad-supported sites", the big problem for most people (including me) wouldn't be that there would be less content but that it would be too painful to find.
  - kaybe 15y ago
    Well, search engines are singular sites, they could just ask for a monthly fee or some cents per search. That or we could find some way to host a search engine in a distributed way on private servers or even the clients. I'm quite sure a way would be found.
- greenyoda 15y ago
  Less content could actually turn out to be better. For example, many of the content farms and linkbait blogs would disappear. That could be a good thing.
mike-cardwell 15y ago
No it wouldn't. Hacker News would still exist, most blogs would still exist. Shopping websites would still exist. Sites which make money via affiliate links and referrals would still exist. Netflix would still exist. Many sites which rely on advertising would convert to other methods of making money, and would be successful. Some would convert and fail, but not all. Email would still exist, IM would still exist. Usenet would still exist. IRC would still exist. Facebook and Twitter would probably die. RSS would still exist. Projects like Diaspora would have more chance of succeeding with no competition from privacy abusing ad reliant services like Facebook. The Internet wouldn't die. The Internet would continue to thrive, and would probably end up providing a much nicer user experience. Most of the services which die, would be the ones that treat the user as the product for sale, and can't make money if that user is no longer a product. That would be a good thing.
- paulhauggis 15y ago
  "The Internet wouldn't die. The Internet would continue to thrive, and would probably end up providing a much nicer user experience." I think at this point, you would probably see many more pay-only websites. I could easily see the major Internet providers getting together with website owners and charging for premium services almost like bundled cable packages. "Projects like Diaspora would have more chance of succeeding with no competition from privacy abusing ad reliant services like Facebook." In a world without ads, Diaspora still wouldn't succeed. Since they can't sell advertising reliably for money, they would have to either sell products or charge a monthly fee. Most people aren't going to pay a monthly fee for a facebook-like service and without the popularity, it would be just another failed startup.
  - mike-cardwell 15y ago
    I don't understand why you think a distributed social network couldn't work without web adverts? There are plenty of organisations that would derive value from setting up nodes. Universities would. I'd imagine it coming as a free addon to email services and other subscription services.
    - paulhauggis 15y ago
      "There are plenty of organisations that would derive value from setting up nodes." I don't think it would ever get to the current levels without some sort of centralization, which costs money. "Universities would. I'd imagine it coming as a free addon to email services and other subscription services." Possibly, but what if you aren't part of a University?
      - mike-cardwell 15y ago
        If centralization is required for a service to grow to a large size, how do you explain email? If email was being designed from scratch today, we'd have people asking why anybody would set up a free to use email service. "Universities" was an example of one type of provider. Setting up a "free to use" node would be useful even for commercial organisations. Think brand recognition. You'd also have charitable organisations doing it for the sake of it. I don't need to supply an exhaustive list to show that it's easily possible.

naner 15y ago

If all ad-supported sites went down tomorrow, the Internet would still work fine and there would still be content. Just not as much.

georgemcbay 15y ago
Considering that both Google and Bing are "ad-supported sites", the big problem for most people (including me) wouldn't be that there would be less content but that it would be too painful to find.
- kaybe 15y ago
  Well, search engines are singular sites, they could just ask for a monthly fee or some cents per search. That or we could find some way to host a search engine in a distributed way on private servers or even the clients. I'm quite sure a way would be found.
greenyoda 15y ago
Less content could actually turn out to be better. For example, many of the content farms and linkbait blogs would disappear. That could be a good thing.

mike-cardwell 15y ago

No it wouldn't. Hacker News would still exist, most blogs would still exist. Shopping websites would still exist. Sites which make money via affiliate links and referrals would still exist. Netflix would still exist. Many sites which rely on advertising would convert to other methods of making money, and would be successful. Some would convert and fail, but not all. Email would still exist, IM would still exist. Usenet would still exist. IRC would still exist. Facebook and Twitter would probably die. RSS would still exist. Projects like Diaspora would have more chance of succeeding with no competition from privacy abusing ad reliant services like Facebook. The Internet wouldn't die. The Internet would continue to thrive, and would probably end up providing a much nicer user experience. Most of the services which die, would be the ones that treat the user as the product for sale, and can't make money if that user is no longer a product. That would be a good thing.

paulhauggis 15y ago
"The Internet wouldn't die. The Internet would continue to thrive, and would probably end up providing a much nicer user experience." I think at this point, you would probably see many more pay-only websites. I could easily see the major Internet providers getting together with website owners and charging for premium services almost like bundled cable packages. "Projects like Diaspora would have more chance of succeeding with no competition from privacy abusing ad reliant services like Facebook." In a world without ads, Diaspora still wouldn't succeed. Since they can't sell advertising reliably for money, they would have to either sell products or charge a monthly fee. Most people aren't going to pay a monthly fee for a facebook-like service and without the popularity, it would be just another failed startup.
- mike-cardwell 15y ago
  I don't understand why you think a distributed social network couldn't work without web adverts? There are plenty of organisations that would derive value from setting up nodes. Universities would. I'd imagine it coming as a free addon to email services and other subscription services.
  - paulhauggis 15y ago
    "There are plenty of organisations that would derive value from setting up nodes." I don't think it would ever get to the current levels without some sort of centralization, which costs money. "Universities would. I'd imagine it coming as a free addon to email services and other subscription services." Possibly, but what if you aren't part of a University?
    - mike-cardwell 15y ago
      If centralization is required for a service to grow to a large size, how do you explain email? If email was being designed from scratch today, we'd have people asking why anybody would set up a free to use email service. "Universities" was an example of one type of provider. Setting up a "free to use" node would be useful even for commercial organisations. Think brand recognition. You'd also have charitable organisations doing it for the sake of it. I don't need to supply an exhaustive list to show that it's easily possible.