6 ms·

People seem to forget the web existed before widespread advertising. Ads are not necessary for all content on the web and, personally, I'd be fine if every last

People seem to forget the web existed before widespread advertising. Ads are not necessary for all content on the web and, personally, I'd be fine if every last ad supported site on the internet disappeared.

caesil 3y ago
Fine, then don't use YouTube. But don't yank away from the rest of us the ability to trade ads for useful free services.
- ktosobcy 3y ago
  Noone will force you to use adblock so what the heck are you whining about?
  - acdha 3y ago
    YouTube costs money to run and videos cost money to make. If enough people think they’re entitled to use other people’s work without paying them, that doesn’t work and the free video will disappear or get worse. Content moves behind subscription requirements, videos will have a lot more integrated sponsorship ads, and quality will decline as more people will be creating cheap video aimed at easy monetization options.
    - ktosobcy 3y ago
      You said: "But don't yank away from the rest of us the ability to trade ads for useful free services." to which I replied that that noone is forcing you to use it. You assume for some werid reason, that using adblock is in a way popular... gosh, how to break it to you - outside of the tech bubble people hardly know it's possible to block adds... > Content moves behind subscription requirements As it should be!
      - acdha 3y ago
        You have me confused with someone else. I would also suggest that you consider whether Google would go to the trouble of developing an anti-ad blocker system if they weren’t seeing that become more popular. I don’t like ads, but I think the only ethical options are posting to avoid them (preferably direct to artists) or watching ads, so I can understand why people want companies to be able to use ads to pay for their costs since the alternative is a lot of content many people won’t see because it won’t be made.
        summerdown2 3y ago
        > I don’t like ads, but I think the only ethical options are posting to avoid them (preferably direct to artists) or watching ads I think that ethical position is weakened by the fact many ads are links to scams and unethical things. You aren't just supporting creators by watching adverts, you're also potentially exposing yourself to bad faith actors.
        acdha 3y ago
        Yes, they’re scammy. That doesn’t mean you can use something without paying for it but it does, and should, mean you go elsewhere.
        summerdown2 3y ago
        To be honest, my ethical calculation comes out the other way around. If someone is playing honest with me in good faith, and they ask for a show of good faith back, I think reciprocity, good manners and ethics favour the idea that I should do so. If someone asks me to play fair with them, and then tries to shaft me - then any consideration I might have had for their position goes out the window. I don’t feel the slightest need to play fair with them because they are a bad faith actor. To be clear, this is purely an opinion about ads on YouTube and whether I have to sit in one of two ethical buckets, not advocating an anything goes position. My opinion is that there’s a third ethical position, which is a bit like the classical solution to the prisoner’s dilemma: co-operate until the other person plays you false. After that, don’t consider them a friend, and there’s no ethical problem in refusing to cooperate with them.
- Nextgrid 3y ago
  Advertisers are welcome to set up a website where you can watch their ads to earn money, which you can then choose to spend as you choose, whether on food or on (formerly free & ad-supported) services.
  - caesil 3y ago
    That's exactly what YouTube is, with the middle step removed.
ndriscoll 3y ago
It would actually be a significant improvement, as SEO affiliate blogspam would lose its economic incentive, making it easier to find authentic sites again.
kjkjadksj 3y ago
This comment prompted me to think of some website that I rely upon that uses such adware to survive. I can’t think of a single one! Most things I use either dont have ads, ask for donations, or use a paywall/subscription system.
- charcircuit 3y ago
  This website. It advertises itself and the companies they fund.
seydor 3y ago
The academic web was paid by taxation. Almost everything that is interesting about the web was funded by advertising.
- _Algernon_ 3y ago
  In terms of quantity, sure. A whole lot of shit is still shit though.
nvm0n2 3y ago
> People seem to forget the web existed before widespread advertising They haven't forgotten anything. This claim is so barely true it's not worth considering. The web both became accessible to ordinary users and gained support for inline images with the release of Win/Mac Mosaic in August 1993. In October 1994 the first banner ad appeared in HotWired, the online version of Wired magazine. Given that that web went only one year between gaining support for images and people starting to use them for advertising, the idea that the web existed before advertising isn't really true. There have been ads for as long as there has been web content created by paid professionals, as is to be expected. > I'd be fine if every last ad supported site on the internet disappeared. You are of course welcome to create a list of websites that don't advertise and then only browse those, although recall that HN obviously wouldn't be usable by you as it is supported by ads. The rest of us will get on with living our lives.

caesil 3y ago

Fine, then don't use YouTube. But don't yank away from the rest of us the ability to trade ads for useful free services.

ktosobcy 3y ago
Noone will force you to use adblock so what the heck are you whining about?
- acdha 3y ago
  YouTube costs money to run and videos cost money to make. If enough people think they’re entitled to use other people’s work without paying them, that doesn’t work and the free video will disappear or get worse. Content moves behind subscription requirements, videos will have a lot more integrated sponsorship ads, and quality will decline as more people will be creating cheap video aimed at easy monetization options.
  - ktosobcy 3y ago
    You said: "But don't yank away from the rest of us the ability to trade ads for useful free services." to which I replied that that noone is forcing you to use it. You assume for some werid reason, that using adblock is in a way popular... gosh, how to break it to you - outside of the tech bubble people hardly know it's possible to block adds... > Content moves behind subscription requirements As it should be!
    - acdha 3y ago
      You have me confused with someone else. I would also suggest that you consider whether Google would go to the trouble of developing an anti-ad blocker system if they weren’t seeing that become more popular. I don’t like ads, but I think the only ethical options are posting to avoid them (preferably direct to artists) or watching ads, so I can understand why people want companies to be able to use ads to pay for their costs since the alternative is a lot of content many people won’t see because it won’t be made.
      - summerdown2 3y ago
        > I don’t like ads, but I think the only ethical options are posting to avoid them (preferably direct to artists) or watching ads I think that ethical position is weakened by the fact many ads are links to scams and unethical things. You aren't just supporting creators by watching adverts, you're also potentially exposing yourself to bad faith actors.
        acdha 3y ago
        Yes, they’re scammy. That doesn’t mean you can use something without paying for it but it does, and should, mean you go elsewhere.
        summerdown2 3y ago
        To be honest, my ethical calculation comes out the other way around. If someone is playing honest with me in good faith, and they ask for a show of good faith back, I think reciprocity, good manners and ethics favour the idea that I should do so. If someone asks me to play fair with them, and then tries to shaft me - then any consideration I might have had for their position goes out the window. I don’t feel the slightest need to play fair with them because they are a bad faith actor. To be clear, this is purely an opinion about ads on YouTube and whether I have to sit in one of two ethical buckets, not advocating an anything goes position. My opinion is that there’s a third ethical position, which is a bit like the classical solution to the prisoner’s dilemma: co-operate until the other person plays you false. After that, don’t consider them a friend, and there’s no ethical problem in refusing to cooperate with them.
Nextgrid 3y ago
Advertisers are welcome to set up a website where you can watch their ads to earn money, which you can then choose to spend as you choose, whether on food or on (formerly free & ad-supported) services.
- caesil 3y ago
  That's exactly what YouTube is, with the middle step removed.

ndriscoll 3y ago

It would actually be a significant improvement, as SEO affiliate blogspam would lose its economic incentive, making it easier to find authentic sites again.

kjkjadksj 3y ago

This comment prompted me to think of some website that I rely upon that uses such adware to survive. I can’t think of a single one! Most things I use either dont have ads, ask for donations, or use a paywall/subscription system.

charcircuit 3y ago
This website. It advertises itself and the companies they fund.

seydor 3y ago

The academic web was paid by taxation. Almost everything that is interesting about the web was funded by advertising.

_Algernon_ 3y ago
In terms of quantity, sure. A whole lot of shit is still shit though.

nvm0n2 3y ago

> People seem to forget the web existed before widespread advertising They haven't forgotten anything. This claim is so barely true it's not worth considering. The web both became accessible to ordinary users and gained support for inline images with the release of Win/Mac Mosaic in August 1993. In October 1994 the first banner ad appeared in HotWired, the online version of Wired magazine. Given that that web went only one year between gaining support for images and people starting to use them for advertising, the idea that the web existed before advertising isn't really true. There have been ads for as long as there has been web content created by paid professionals, as is to be expected. > I'd be fine if every last ad supported site on the internet disappeared. You are of course welcome to create a list of websites that don't advertise and then only browse those, although recall that HN obviously wouldn't be usable by you as it is supported by ads. The rest of us will get on with living our lives.