4 ms·

If you use a service, but never compensate the creators for it, how can you possibly reason they are immoral? Not directly at OP, but just in general, the Inte

If you use a service, but never compensate the creators for it, how can you possibly reason they are immoral? Not directly at OP, but just in general, the Internet needs to look at itself in the mirror and ask "are we actually the ones driving the problem?"

senko 9mo ago
Free service with strings attached does sound like a "some day - and that day may never come - I will call upon you"[0] type of bargain. [0] https://youtu.be/HTTxJRAs-uA?t=48 https://youtu.be/HTTxJRAs-uA?t=48
- janez2 9mo ago
  you have a tracking "si=..." parameter in the youtube link
  - senko 9mo ago
    heh, qed. thanks, edited the comment to remove the tracking param.
- paulryanrogers 9mo ago
  Except the terms aren't vague. They are spelled out. Usually the deal is to accept exposure to ads. While the terms may change in the future, the switching cost of a different browser or website are often quite low.
  - kaoD 9mo ago
    I didn't accept any deal by clicking a link that took me to a webpage. I don't think anyone using Python, which is GPL-compatible, expects it to come with a "and you'll see our popup advertising for donations if you visit our site". If you (generic "you") make me accept that deal, guess what: I won't (and I actually don't, this happens routinely to me since I'm european -- I always close pages that ask me to "log in or accept our cookies"). Feel free to block me. I don't care that much about your content anyways. I won't see ads one way, or the other. And I will work hard to make this the default experience of my friends and family. I'd gladly click a checkbox "tell the server I'm using adblock so they can block me". I don't care about your content that much. It's often crap and low value, that's why you do drive-by advertising with clickbait titles and low effort mass slop.
    - Workaccount2 9mo ago
      Most big YouTubers, especially tech adjacent, have about 40-50% of users ad-blocking their content. So they get no compensation. Ok fine, but those users surely use patreon then? Well conversion rates for "viewer to paying subscriber" are <1%. Again, I'm not pointing the finger at you individually, perhaps you always send tips and subscriptions, but overwhelmingly, the vibe of people with your feelings have a mindset of "I'm entitled to free stuff, they're bad if they want money, and I'm fighting a righteous crusade" Meanwhile the Internet is going to shit catering only to people who cannot figure out ad block....
      - fwip 9mo ago
        Surely the revenue from a patreon subscriber is also more than 100x that of a viewer, right?
        Workaccount2 9mo ago
        Yes, let's endorse a system where 1 sucker pays and 100 others ride for free.. C'mon
        iamtedd 9mo ago
        It's literally a system of patronage, so yes. That's what the patrons sign up for.
        kldg 9mo ago
        also essentially how many large news organizations have pivoted. $520/year for WSJ, $400/year for Bloomberg (excluding terminal-only news and other extras, of course), $390/year for NYT, $120/year for WaPo (with exclusions). For only $2,500 or so a year, you can have a balanced stream of news and journalism. -But not your household; you need to pay extra for family plans. (or you can do what most people do)
      - nativeit 9mo ago
wussboy 9mo ago
I disagree with this idea. The current model (generally free content that is supported by advertisers) is not the only model that can exist. Yes the Internet would be vastly different if there were no ad revenue. But the Internet existed without ads before, and certainly could do so again. Services like Meta/X couldn't exist in that market, but would that be so bad?
- tzs 9mo ago
  The OP is not complaining about free with ads. They are complaining about a free software site that is asking for a donation.
moffkalast 9mo ago
Because they don't understand the rules of the game. If you create something in a field that is so infinitely commoditized that there aren't even any paid options and thousands of competitors that would instantly jump at the chance to be a replacement just for popularity's sake, you are frankly deluded to expect anything in return for your work. Best you can expect is to have some influence over others through your direction of the project, which is something that you could actually sell and I'm sure they do. Just look at Zig. Any donations they get are completely against any market common sense and just people's good will. Demanding anything is so hilariously out of touch with reality.
trinix912 9mo ago
> If you use a service, but never compensate the creators for it, how can you possibly reason they are immoral? A lot of times nowadays it's actually the users themselves creating the content which the platform uses to secure its network effect to have visits in the first place. Should those creator users then be paid as well or not?
ashf023 9mo ago
I don't think this applies to Python. There is a core team and there are expenses, but people do contribute code and work. Not to mention corporate sponsors. Sure, donate if you want, but it's not the same as blocking ads on purely ad-funded content (which I do, but won't defend as much)

senko 9mo ago

Free service with strings attached does sound like a "some day - and that day may never come - I will call upon you"[0] type of bargain. [0] https://youtu.be/HTTxJRAs-uA?t=48 https://youtu.be/HTTxJRAs-uA?t=48

janez2 9mo ago
you have a tracking "si=..." parameter in the youtube link
- senko 9mo ago
  heh, qed. thanks, edited the comment to remove the tracking param.
paulryanrogers 9mo ago
Except the terms aren't vague. They are spelled out. Usually the deal is to accept exposure to ads. While the terms may change in the future, the switching cost of a different browser or website are often quite low.
- kaoD 9mo ago
  I didn't accept any deal by clicking a link that took me to a webpage. I don't think anyone using Python, which is GPL-compatible, expects it to come with a "and you'll see our popup advertising for donations if you visit our site". If you (generic "you") make me accept that deal, guess what: I won't (and I actually don't, this happens routinely to me since I'm european -- I always close pages that ask me to "log in or accept our cookies"). Feel free to block me. I don't care that much about your content anyways. I won't see ads one way, or the other. And I will work hard to make this the default experience of my friends and family. I'd gladly click a checkbox "tell the server I'm using adblock so they can block me". I don't care about your content that much. It's often crap and low value, that's why you do drive-by advertising with clickbait titles and low effort mass slop.
  - Workaccount2 9mo ago
    Most big YouTubers, especially tech adjacent, have about 40-50% of users ad-blocking their content. So they get no compensation. Ok fine, but those users surely use patreon then? Well conversion rates for "viewer to paying subscriber" are <1%. Again, I'm not pointing the finger at you individually, perhaps you always send tips and subscriptions, but overwhelmingly, the vibe of people with your feelings have a mindset of "I'm entitled to free stuff, they're bad if they want money, and I'm fighting a righteous crusade" Meanwhile the Internet is going to shit catering only to people who cannot figure out ad block....
    - fwip 9mo ago
      Surely the revenue from a patreon subscriber is also more than 100x that of a viewer, right?
      - Workaccount2 9mo ago
        Yes, let's endorse a system where 1 sucker pays and 100 others ride for free.. C'mon
        iamtedd 9mo ago
        It's literally a system of patronage, so yes. That's what the patrons sign up for.
        kldg 9mo ago
        also essentially how many large news organizations have pivoted. $520/year for WSJ, $400/year for Bloomberg (excluding terminal-only news and other extras, of course), $390/year for NYT, $120/year for WaPo (with exclusions). For only $2,500 or so a year, you can have a balanced stream of news and journalism. -But not your household; you need to pay extra for family plans. (or you can do what most people do)
    - nativeit 9mo ago

wussboy 9mo ago

I disagree with this idea. The current model (generally free content that is supported by advertisers) is not the only model that can exist. Yes the Internet would be vastly different if there were no ad revenue. But the Internet existed without ads before, and certainly could do so again. Services like Meta/X couldn't exist in that market, but would that be so bad?

tzs 9mo ago
The OP is not complaining about free with ads. They are complaining about a free software site that is asking for a donation.

moffkalast 9mo ago

Because they don't understand the rules of the game. If you create something in a field that is so infinitely commoditized that there aren't even any paid options and thousands of competitors that would instantly jump at the chance to be a replacement just for popularity's sake, you are frankly deluded to expect anything in return for your work. Best you can expect is to have some influence over others through your direction of the project, which is something that you could actually sell and I'm sure they do. Just look at Zig. Any donations they get are completely against any market common sense and just people's good will. Demanding anything is so hilariously out of touch with reality.

trinix912 9mo ago

> If you use a service, but never compensate the creators for it, how can you possibly reason they are immoral? A lot of times nowadays it's actually the users themselves creating the content which the platform uses to secure its network effect to have visits in the first place. Should those creator users then be paid as well or not?

ashf023 9mo ago

I don't think this applies to Python. There is a core team and there are expenses, but people do contribute code and work. Not to mention corporate sponsors. Sure, donate if you want, but it's not the same as blocking ads on purely ad-funded content (which I do, but won't defend as much)