3 ms·
I see that viewpoint too, but if you see value in ads, why would you want to pay $5/mo for less relevant ones? I'm certainly in a bubble here, but I'm really s
by itishappy 2y ago
I see that viewpoint too, but if you see value in ads, why would you want to pay $5/mo for less relevant ones?
I'm certainly in a bubble here, but I'm really struggling to imagine the combination of privacy conscious, frugal, and not-bothered-enough-to-just-install-ublock-and-ghostery as a winning combination.
To put it differently, I'm confused why there's not a $10/mo ad-free tier, as that's what I'd personally prefer.
- add-sub-mul-div 2y agoYou could definitely be right that it's too niche of a tier to make sense. I can just see the logic (on paper) that surveillance is the worst part of advertising. I used to pay for physical newspapers and magazines that had ads in them, without complaining. It was a simpler time. But then internet content was free for so long and Google etc. abused us for so long that I can't feel good about paying for a news web site at all now. Even if it was ad free I don't trust my traffic isn't being sold in at least some obfuscated way.
- itishappy 2y ago> I used to pay for physical newspapers and magazines that had ads in them, without complaining. That is a point I had not considered.