4 ms·
> Why would I, as a consumer, compromise on what I want to make some MBA's life easier? You presumably want access to the Verge's content. This is unsustainabl
by jnsie 2y ago
> Why would I, as a consumer, compromise on what I want to make some MBA's life easier?
You presumably want access to the Verge's content. This is unsustainable without some revenue. You're compromising to continue to get what you want, not to make some MBA's life easier.
- adamc 2y agoI don't want any content enough to tolerate ads.
- next_xibalba 2y agoThen don’t consume it. You have full control over that. We all do. What we don’t have is the right to assert a condescending “moral” stance that ignores the economic realities that producers must grapple with.
- adamc 2y agoWe have the full right to assert any moral stance. Whether others find it "condescending" is really not my problem. The reality is that the internet is not a good publication venue. There are lots of eyeballs and distribution is cheap, but getting people to pay is hard. That doesn't mean serving up advertisement is a moral response. Advertisement is met with ad-blockers and will continue to be. When that is too painful, people do skip the content.
- lobsterthief 2y agoHonestly, most people don’t use an ad blocker. We’re all in a tech bubble here. Most people just see ads and that’s it. Some complain, most don’t.
- johnnyanmac 2y ago>We have the full right to assert any moral stance. people are free to ignore it as well. Has his kind of blowhardy stance ever convinced anyone? >When that is too painful, people do skip the content. not enough that non-mainstream news sites haven't stopped serving ads. That's the point. You can only control you, not someone clicking a result off google or reddit, nor a million dollar website that has paid employees.
- flashgordon 2y agoSo the problem is not just black and white - consume ads or dont. It is when my data is being sold without my consent or visibility, when an accidental visiting a page installs tracking cookies and shows annoying opt-out screens, when ad/malware gets installed in every piece of hardware I own (eg "Smart TVs") that is the problem. No business "needs" to exist - that too vampirically. Incentivize the customer to opt-in with full visibility and let them pick. Dollar costs are visible - why are ads sneakier?
- johnnyanmac 2y ago>Dollar costs are visible - why are ads sneakier? because of lack of regulations? or corrections to regulation. there's GDPR but of course there will be loopholes to make the browsing annoying. That's the cat and mouse of law.
- cstrahan 2y agoI don’t see how sharing one’s rationale for not being a customer (as in the article) is equivalent to asserting a moral stance, nor do I see any condescension. Is it that you are generally opposed to critical response? And if so, do you see the irony in you critically responding to another critical response?
- account42 2y agoYou are ignoring the reality that ethical producers must grapple with: it's impossible to compete ethically when your competitors don't have that limit. Note that this also goes for genuinely free content - if tons of ad-supported businesses just dominate the search results because they can afford to spend time on SEO then free alternatives (individuals sharing their passions, non-profit organizations, etc.) will be discouraged. The reality is also that we simply have much more content than needed. Having every single of currently ad supported businesses cease to exist would not be a real problem.
- lobsterthief 2y ago> Having every single of currently ad supported businesses cease to exist would not be a real problem. Uhh, what about news organizations? That would be a problem.
- account42 2y agoIt wouldn't be a problem at all, no.
- LargoLasskhyfv 2y agoI don't. I can't remember anything from there which I've found noteworthy. And I have been pushed there from here, because someone found it postworthy, and I clicked because of boredom. Skimmed. Maybe scrolled. Still bored. Learned nothing. Closed tab. YAWN. I won't miss it.