2 ms·

I'm actually ok with this given that google is the source of the internet's dependency on advertisements as its sole method of reliable income for non-subscribe

I'm actually ok with this given that google is the source of the internet's dependency on advertisements as its sole method of reliable income for non-subscribers. They are more than welcome to reintroduce less destructive methods of transacting over content.

topspin 3y ago
> given that google is the source of the internet's dependency on advertisements I remember the internet before Google. There were lots of ads. It was great watching animated GIF ads load at 56 Kbps. There were pop-up adds and crazy obnoxious flashing ads and NSFW ads. Google didn't create all of that: the ad-sphere was alive and kicking long before anyone heard of Google.
- blackeyeblitzar 3y ago
  Yes there were obnoxious ads that popped up, but we didn’t have the same degree of monopolization in platforms or walled gardens, and we didn’t have so many industries whose existence depends on online advertising. Google and Facebook’s ads may not be as obnoxious but there’s more of them (look at how many ads there are on search results page) and they’ve affected the viability of many other parts of the economy in my opinion.
- darby_eight 3y ago
  > Google didn't create all of that: the ad-sphere was alive and kicking long before anyone heard of Google. I never said they did. Hell, print publications were nearly as bad as the internet has become—marketing is simply a large societal problem we have no solution for. I still place the blame for lack of other funding models squarely on them—any other funding model would have undercut their entire existence, and no other company has had such a profound impact on the web (particularly with the demise of netscape).
- pessimizer 3y ago
  > Google didn't create all of that No, they bought it in the form of Doubleclick, and its profits supported the rest of their money-losing business. If buying Doubleclick doesn't make you responsible for Doubleclick, I don't know what does. People wouldn't tolerate the level of online ad blight we had 20 years ago, there are ad-blockers now; the reason Google isn't going buckwild with ads is because it can't.

topspin 3y ago

> given that google is the source of the internet's dependency on advertisements I remember the internet before Google. There were lots of ads. It was great watching animated GIF ads load at 56 Kbps. There were pop-up adds and crazy obnoxious flashing ads and NSFW ads. Google didn't create all of that: the ad-sphere was alive and kicking long before anyone heard of Google.

blackeyeblitzar 3y ago
Yes there were obnoxious ads that popped up, but we didn’t have the same degree of monopolization in platforms or walled gardens, and we didn’t have so many industries whose existence depends on online advertising. Google and Facebook’s ads may not be as obnoxious but there’s more of them (look at how many ads there are on search results page) and they’ve affected the viability of many other parts of the economy in my opinion.
darby_eight 3y ago
> Google didn't create all of that: the ad-sphere was alive and kicking long before anyone heard of Google. I never said they did. Hell, print publications were nearly as bad as the internet has become—marketing is simply a large societal problem we have no solution for. I still place the blame for lack of other funding models squarely on them—any other funding model would have undercut their entire existence, and no other company has had such a profound impact on the web (particularly with the demise of netscape).
pessimizer 3y ago
> Google didn't create all of that No, they bought it in the form of Doubleclick, and its profits supported the rest of their money-losing business. If buying Doubleclick doesn't make you responsible for Doubleclick, I don't know what does. People wouldn't tolerate the level of online ad blight we had 20 years ago, there are ad-blockers now; the reason Google isn't going buckwild with ads is because it can't.