4 ms·

>Many people (especially tech people) have an almost psychotic adversity against any kind of paid online services. That is what confuses me...we are strongly i

>Many people (especially tech people) have an almost psychotic adversity against any kind of paid online services. That is what confuses me...we are strongly in favor of privacy and tracker blocking, but then get upset when we have to pay money to join a social media. Are there any third options to support platforms that don't require payments, or advertisement viewing?

kelnos 3y ago
> we are strongly in favor of privacy and tracker blocking, but then get upset when we have to pay money Speak for yourself; whenever I have the option to pay to remove ads on a service I get value from, I sign up nigh immediately. And on top of that, I'm always running with aggressive ad and tracker blockers running. If given the option, I would have paid a small yearly fee to use Instagram back ~10 years ago when the platform was actually decent and didn't do icky things to push engagement up. Of course, the problem is that most people would not have paid a yearly fee to use Instagram, so if payment were required, it would be a ghost town. And, all things being equal, advertisers would prefer that there isn't an ad-free paid option, since then the ads reach fewer people.
- danjoredd 3y ago
  I try to do this but money is limited. If I tried this for every service I use, I would be pretty broke and I am not the only one. The average salary in America is around 40-50k/year. Factor in kids, rent, food, and everything else, paying for no ads gets real expensive real quick. That's why I wish there was a good in-between option that respects privacy and our attention, but still allows sites to make a profit. I want an ad-free internet, but not at the risk of classism and blocking out the lower class that can only afford to use free internet services
  - carlosjobim 3y ago
    If somebody can't afford let's say $20 per year for a service that they enjoy, then it's because that person has decided she doesn't want to afford it. I understand the argument that "It's not worth it", that's for each individual to decide. But then those people shouldn't ask for somebody else to provide it to them for free or without ads. You can have it if you want it, and if you don't want it that much, then do something else with your time, no? I have never heard any argument about classism or blocking out poor people applied to the devices needed to get online, the computers, the phones. Strange, isn't it?
    - danjoredd 3y ago
      >then it's because that person has decided she doesn't want to afford it That is VERY flawed logic that suggests a very privileged life. Growing up my family was downright poor to the point we sometimes lost electricity because we had to buy bologna and bread for supper instead. We used an ancient PC that was given to us to access the internet which was 10$/month for dialup, but even that sometimes got cut out, again, because we needed food. Having spent most of my childhood in a trailer park with disparaged people, it often comes down to a mix of tough situations, bad luck, and poor life choices. Should we really punish them for it by locking things behind a paywall? I don't think so. Also should we have our privacy be violated to support the poor? Also no. This is why I am trying to brainstorm a third option...one that isn't classist but still allows for privacy. Its a tough question and I am having trouble coming up with solutions...but a third option HAS to exist somewhere. As for your point about classism not being applied to the devices themselves, that is because you could fall out of a tree and hit five cell phones on your way down. If you know pretty much anyone, they probably have a spare old phone they haven't touched in years they can let you have if you can't afford your own. People also throw them out all the time so you can get one out of the trash and it will still be plenty useable. With public WiFi, no matter how poor you are you can still access the internet. Its a weird time where even the homeless can access Facebook without even having to pay for a device
      - carlosjobim 3y ago
        I don't want to pass judgement on another posters parents, even though you told your personal story here, so I'll answer your comment as best as I can with that in mind. You shouldn't be so eager to pass judgement on me either. You don't know me or my life. Poverty or a poor upbringing is not a badge of honour, but many people see it as such and maybe you've become accustomed to easily shutting up anybody by saying that they have no idea what it's like being poor. Okay, but how do you make progress from that? I stand by my point that if somebody can't pay a very small yearly fee for access to the content or service they want, then they weren't that interested. If you are so poor that you can't afford $10 per year, then you have much bigger problems than accessing some online content of interest. The goal for a person in that situation or somebody who wants to help them is to get out of poverty, not to cope. As for getting the devices for free, the same argument could be applied to online content: You can get information for free at a library, you can socialize with any friend by meeting in person. It's a less convenient experience than having it at home, but using a discarded device is also a less convenient experience. I find your arguments about "classism" a bit strange. Is it "classism" that some stuff is more expensive in the supermarket? Is it "classism" that the plumber charges his hourly fee to the poor as well as to the rich? That an iPhone costs a thousand dollars? Is it "classism" that an employer pays a wage that is much lower than what the worker produces? Yes! Is it "classism" that you have to indebt yourself for life to afford a home or pay rent for literally nothing? Yes! Is it classism that a large percentage of the population spend their whole life without ever having done anything productive, because they have unlimited taps for money taken as taxes from workers? Yes! But instead of being upset at those who are to blame for poverty, it is easier to direct that rage towards some internet poster like me, who dares to suggest that not everything should be free. Here are what I see as the options to have online services: 1. Current ad-fueled, spam-ridden content and social networks 2. Cheap paid content and social networks 3. Creators work for free, making content for your benefit without any reimbursement. After some time they burn out or can't afford the time it takes. 4. Pirating. Mainstream creators can take it, small time creators go broke. 5. You vote for communism so that content creators get paid by the government and everybody can benefit for free. The content will be what the communist government prefers for you to have. I prefer option 2.
Nasrudith 3y ago
> That is what confuses me...we are strongly in favor of privacy and tracker blocking, but then get upset when we have to pay money to join a social media. Are there any third options to support platforms that don't require payments, or advertisement viewing? There is a bit of a highly honed instinct that paying for it doesn't make you not the product and is thus a rip off. Cable TV has ads and it keeps on creeping in, just like how paying to not be spammed doesn't work because it only signals to the danes that you have the geld and thus are a better target.
- carlosjobim 3y ago
  Cable ads are always brought up, but what about all the other services you can pya for to not have ads? Fastmail has been providing this service for a long time, for example. And what is the risk exactly? If a paid service starts introducing ads, you can cancel. You can cancel cable TV as well.

kelnos 3y ago

> we are strongly in favor of privacy and tracker blocking, but then get upset when we have to pay money Speak for yourself; whenever I have the option to pay to remove ads on a service I get value from, I sign up nigh immediately. And on top of that, I'm always running with aggressive ad and tracker blockers running. If given the option, I would have paid a small yearly fee to use Instagram back ~10 years ago when the platform was actually decent and didn't do icky things to push engagement up. Of course, the problem is that most people would not have paid a yearly fee to use Instagram, so if payment were required, it would be a ghost town. And, all things being equal, advertisers would prefer that there isn't an ad-free paid option, since then the ads reach fewer people.

danjoredd 3y ago
I try to do this but money is limited. If I tried this for every service I use, I would be pretty broke and I am not the only one. The average salary in America is around 40-50k/year. Factor in kids, rent, food, and everything else, paying for no ads gets real expensive real quick. That's why I wish there was a good in-between option that respects privacy and our attention, but still allows sites to make a profit. I want an ad-free internet, but not at the risk of classism and blocking out the lower class that can only afford to use free internet services
- carlosjobim 3y ago
  If somebody can't afford let's say $20 per year for a service that they enjoy, then it's because that person has decided she doesn't want to afford it. I understand the argument that "It's not worth it", that's for each individual to decide. But then those people shouldn't ask for somebody else to provide it to them for free or without ads. You can have it if you want it, and if you don't want it that much, then do something else with your time, no? I have never heard any argument about classism or blocking out poor people applied to the devices needed to get online, the computers, the phones. Strange, isn't it?
  - danjoredd 3y ago
    >then it's because that person has decided she doesn't want to afford it That is VERY flawed logic that suggests a very privileged life. Growing up my family was downright poor to the point we sometimes lost electricity because we had to buy bologna and bread for supper instead. We used an ancient PC that was given to us to access the internet which was 10$/month for dialup, but even that sometimes got cut out, again, because we needed food. Having spent most of my childhood in a trailer park with disparaged people, it often comes down to a mix of tough situations, bad luck, and poor life choices. Should we really punish them for it by locking things behind a paywall? I don't think so. Also should we have our privacy be violated to support the poor? Also no. This is why I am trying to brainstorm a third option...one that isn't classist but still allows for privacy. Its a tough question and I am having trouble coming up with solutions...but a third option HAS to exist somewhere. As for your point about classism not being applied to the devices themselves, that is because you could fall out of a tree and hit five cell phones on your way down. If you know pretty much anyone, they probably have a spare old phone they haven't touched in years they can let you have if you can't afford your own. People also throw them out all the time so you can get one out of the trash and it will still be plenty useable. With public WiFi, no matter how poor you are you can still access the internet. Its a weird time where even the homeless can access Facebook without even having to pay for a device
    - carlosjobim 3y ago
      I don't want to pass judgement on another posters parents, even though you told your personal story here, so I'll answer your comment as best as I can with that in mind. You shouldn't be so eager to pass judgement on me either. You don't know me or my life. Poverty or a poor upbringing is not a badge of honour, but many people see it as such and maybe you've become accustomed to easily shutting up anybody by saying that they have no idea what it's like being poor. Okay, but how do you make progress from that? I stand by my point that if somebody can't pay a very small yearly fee for access to the content or service they want, then they weren't that interested. If you are so poor that you can't afford $10 per year, then you have much bigger problems than accessing some online content of interest. The goal for a person in that situation or somebody who wants to help them is to get out of poverty, not to cope. As for getting the devices for free, the same argument could be applied to online content: You can get information for free at a library, you can socialize with any friend by meeting in person. It's a less convenient experience than having it at home, but using a discarded device is also a less convenient experience. I find your arguments about "classism" a bit strange. Is it "classism" that some stuff is more expensive in the supermarket? Is it "classism" that the plumber charges his hourly fee to the poor as well as to the rich? That an iPhone costs a thousand dollars? Is it "classism" that an employer pays a wage that is much lower than what the worker produces? Yes! Is it "classism" that you have to indebt yourself for life to afford a home or pay rent for literally nothing? Yes! Is it classism that a large percentage of the population spend their whole life without ever having done anything productive, because they have unlimited taps for money taken as taxes from workers? Yes! But instead of being upset at those who are to blame for poverty, it is easier to direct that rage towards some internet poster like me, who dares to suggest that not everything should be free. Here are what I see as the options to have online services: 1. Current ad-fueled, spam-ridden content and social networks 2. Cheap paid content and social networks 3. Creators work for free, making content for your benefit without any reimbursement. After some time they burn out or can't afford the time it takes. 4. Pirating. Mainstream creators can take it, small time creators go broke. 5. You vote for communism so that content creators get paid by the government and everybody can benefit for free. The content will be what the communist government prefers for you to have. I prefer option 2.

Nasrudith 3y ago

> That is what confuses me...we are strongly in favor of privacy and tracker blocking, but then get upset when we have to pay money to join a social media. Are there any third options to support platforms that don't require payments, or advertisement viewing? There is a bit of a highly honed instinct that paying for it doesn't make you not the product and is thus a rip off. Cable TV has ads and it keeps on creeping in, just like how paying to not be spammed doesn't work because it only signals to the danes that you have the geld and thus are a better target.

carlosjobim 3y ago
Cable ads are always brought up, but what about all the other services you can pya for to not have ads? Fastmail has been providing this service for a long time, for example. And what is the risk exactly? If a paid service starts introducing ads, you can cancel. You can cancel cable TV as well.