I read and appreciated your thoughtful comment. The problem for me is that "advertising" as is common now on the internet has strong negative effects. I am gues

I read and appreciated your thoughtful comment. The problem for me is that "advertising" as is common now on the internet has strong negative effects. I am guessing like when everyone was using coal for heating. We are so used to it that we do not consider it. And there is no viable alternative which makes it unpleasant to think about. I believe we humans have little tolerance for being helpless. Seriously. To the point where we would rather ignore things. It is like coal. Who wanted to dwell on the damage of coal as a power source when there was no alternative? At least that is how I explain the weird ways humans react. So then we get to why there is not an alternative to the current internet business model- tracking people and selling them as targets. Why is there no alternative? Perhaps it is because of the mismatch between internet service businesses and our financial system? The internet is characterized by a staggering number of very, very low value transactions. It is 1 million $0.00001 transactions. There is a finite cost. If I post on HN, if I send an email. There is a very small but nevertheless real cost. But how can I pay $0.0001 to send my email? There is no cost effective way to do that. The cost of a single credit card transaction is much higher (Stripe says 2.9% + 30 cents). So instead of people paying for a service, third parties pay to target customers. Why would you want to target a customer? While there is some legitimate interest, but targeting is easily used to exploit people. Even when there is some reason the effects can be deadly. The NYT is the source of news for many people. But the advertisers are most interested in one demographic - the very wealthy. So the NYT has a parade of articles about what kind of second vacation home $1 million will buy you in Portand, Maine. Or Edmonton, or Pais. But in Portland, Maine, there is an astonishing problem of homelessness. Does the NYT run articles about "The damage your $1 million second vacation home is doing to the people of Maine"? Nope. Because the target demographic does not want to read that, and the advertisers for $600 boots will not want their ad place near it. Etc. I think the problem is real. I think the side effects are far more damaging that we can tolerate considering. Appreciate your thinking.