3 ms·

Removing ads would disadvantage less affluent people and youth, as many free services like online platforms and social media are funded by advertising. This ind

Removing ads would disadvantage less affluent people and youth, as many free services like online platforms and social media are funded by advertising. This indirect subsidy from wealthier consumers who buy advertised products would vanish if ads were eliminated. Likely, services would introduce paywalls as an alternative revenue source, making access harder for those unable to pay. Moreover, ads would be replaced by something worse. Without ads, companies would still market their products, but in more covert and potentially deceptive ways. This could lead to less transparency and potentially more manipulative tactics, making it harder for consumers to discern genuine content from promotional material. Journalists would be given free stuff, get invited to parties, there would be product placement everywhere, endorsements, etc.

danbruc 3y ago
Companies could just not produce and show ads but keep the ad budget in their prices and keep spending it. Yes, this will of course not work, this will screw up all kinds of incentives, but then lets make it a tax and let the state send a cent every time I visit a website. Free internet services for everyone just like we could do free public transportation. Not sure if this could work and even if then it would probably be more complicated, but I have serious doubts that the ad based system we have right now is the only, best or most efficient system.
timeon 3y ago
> replaced by something worse Not if it is regulated. Maybe there would be less online platforms but there would be some community driven as they were before. This mindset that ads are necessary sounds like Stockholm syndrome at best, gaslighting at worst.
- olalonde 3y ago
  It has more to do about humility than "Stockholhm syndrome" or "gas lighting". Who are we to take away the ad-supported platforms from the people who want them or need them, because they can't afford to pay? Community driven platforms exist today. We don't even need to ban the ad-supported platforms to have them. By the way, I think you may be looking at the past with rosy glass or perhaps didn't live through it. Because advertising on the web used to be a lot more distracting and distasteful. There were popups all over the place, full page animated banner ads, etc.
- whimsicalism 3y ago
  Maybe use terms you actually feel confident you know? Because as it stands “stockholm” and “gaslighting” makes it sound like you were just going for a grab bag and seeing what would stick. The mechanism for why the less affluent would be gated off the platform makes sense to me. Your rejoinder that actually there would be “community driven” platforms seems lacking in a mechanism.

danbruc 3y ago

Companies could just not produce and show ads but keep the ad budget in their prices and keep spending it. Yes, this will of course not work, this will screw up all kinds of incentives, but then lets make it a tax and let the state send a cent every time I visit a website. Free internet services for everyone just like we could do free public transportation. Not sure if this could work and even if then it would probably be more complicated, but I have serious doubts that the ad based system we have right now is the only, best or most efficient system.

timeon 3y ago

> replaced by something worse Not if it is regulated. Maybe there would be less online platforms but there would be some community driven as they were before. This mindset that ads are necessary sounds like Stockholm syndrome at best, gaslighting at worst.

olalonde 3y ago
It has more to do about humility than "Stockholhm syndrome" or "gas lighting". Who are we to take away the ad-supported platforms from the people who want them or need them, because they can't afford to pay? Community driven platforms exist today. We don't even need to ban the ad-supported platforms to have them. By the way, I think you may be looking at the past with rosy glass or perhaps didn't live through it. Because advertising on the web used to be a lot more distracting and distasteful. There were popups all over the place, full page animated banner ads, etc.
whimsicalism 3y ago
Maybe use terms you actually feel confident you know? Because as it stands “stockholm” and “gaslighting” makes it sound like you were just going for a grab bag and seeing what would stick. The mechanism for why the less affluent would be gated off the platform makes sense to me. Your rejoinder that actually there would be “community driven” platforms seems lacking in a mechanism.