3 ms·

Real content doesnt necessarily mean advertising free. There are tons of high quality pages and services funded by ads. The problem is with the spam and slop.

• TeMPOraL 2y ago
  > Real content doesnt necessarily mean advertising free. There are tons of high quality pages and services funded by ads. There are some, but it's a rounding error compared to the ad-funded slop. Basing your business model around advertising creates strong perverse incentives, pitting you against your users/customers. Sometimes, a company gets enough return on advertising investment they can fund side ventures off their marketing budget - this creates an UBI-like low pressure space for quality content to grow. But stuff funded directly from ads? It's safe to assume the content there is secondary at best, and exists primarily as a vector to bait you so you can be exposed to ads. > banning adds is just one way. Content review is another. Right, but they're complementary. Content review gets easier when you cut out 99% of crap at the source by fiat, and with a hard line drawn, the reviewers are much harder for marketers to compromise either.
  • s1artibartfast 2y ago
    >Right, but they're complementary. Content review gets easier when you cut out 99% of crap at the source by fiat, and with a hard line drawn, the reviewers are much harder for marketers to compromise either. Agreed. Walled gardens cut out the crap. Invitation only.