3 ms·

A scary observation in light of another front page article right now: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44783566 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4478356

• inquirerGeneral 1y ago
  [dead]
• dspillett 1y ago
  “Free” could have a number of meanings here. Free to the viewer, free to the hoster, free to the creator, etc… That content can't be served entirely for free doesn't mean that all content will require payment, and so is subject to issues with payment processors, just that some things may gravitate back to a model where it costs a small amount to host something (i.e. pay for home internet and host bits off that, or you might have VPS out there that runs tools and costs a few $ /yr or /month). I pay for resources to host my bits & bobs instead of relying on services provided in exchange for stalking the people looking at them, this is free for the viewer as they aren't even paying indirectly. Most things are paid for anyway, even if the person hosting it nor my looking at it are paying directly: adtech arseholes give services to people hosting content in exchange for the ability to stalk us and attempt to divert our attention. Very few sites/apps, other than play/hobby ones like mine or those from more actively privacy focused types, are free of that.
• Taek 1y ago
  That's already a deep problem for all of society. If we don't want that to be an ongoing issue, we need to make sure money is a neutral infrastructure. It doesn't just apply to the web, it applies to literally everything that we spend money on via a third party service. Which is... most everything these days.