3 ms·

>How is someone supposed to pay for all the overhead that goes into research and writing these articles without a source of income. I'm not sure, but we've bee

>How is someone supposed to pay for all the overhead that goes into research and writing these articles without a source of income. I'm not sure, but we've been trying the online advertising model for a few decades now, and it's been terrible. Pop-ups, pop-unders, malware, I could go on and on. At some point it's fine to just say "no" to the advertisers after so much abuse. Also, there's nothing stopping a website from hosting their own ads: these generally are not blocked by ad-blockers because they're served from the same domain, rather than a known ad-serving domain. But they never want to do this for some reason.

toolazytologin 9mo ago
The site hosting the ads seems like a red herring? Do you mean they could sell or design their own ads? If so, that seems like a difficult proposition. If we accept that most people won’t pay a subscription, and take ads off the table as an option, then I can only think of 2 other options: * charitable patrons (this is a thing, but I guess not effective enough?) * selling other products to subsidize the free content These both appear to have obvious problems and for a dubious goal of making another party subsidize the visitor’s consumption cost. Having the visitor cover their own cost seems reasonable. What currency do they have other than money or attention? Maybe a small work problem that provides an abstracted service to a separate payer (a la reCAPTCHA, but for $).
- shiroiuma 9mo ago
  >Do you mean they could sell or design their own ads? No, I mean they could host their own ads. The way ad-blockers work is that they see requests from a web page to other domains, particularly known ad-serving domains, so they reject those requests, take those elements out of the page, etc. But they don't alter self-hosted images. So if a web page has a bunch of JPGs which are really ads and not just helpful illustrations, and embeds those into the page, the ad-blocker has no way of knowing these are actually ads, and can't block them. But these places never do this because they want to outsource the advertising to someone else, and the advertisers want to not just show ads, but also track how many times the ad was served, who it was served to, how long it was viewed, and lots of other information that isn't necessary for advertising (and was never a factor back when ads were simply printed on newspaper or shown on TV). In short, the advertisers insist on spying on people now. This should not be tolerated or excused, ever.

toolazytologin 9mo ago

The site hosting the ads seems like a red herring? Do you mean they could sell or design their own ads? If so, that seems like a difficult proposition. If we accept that most people won’t pay a subscription, and take ads off the table as an option, then I can only think of 2 other options: * charitable patrons (this is a thing, but I guess not effective enough?) * selling other products to subsidize the free content These both appear to have obvious problems and for a dubious goal of making another party subsidize the visitor’s consumption cost. Having the visitor cover their own cost seems reasonable. What currency do they have other than money or attention? Maybe a small work problem that provides an abstracted service to a separate payer (a la reCAPTCHA, but for $).

shiroiuma 9mo ago
>Do you mean they could sell or design their own ads? No, I mean they could host their own ads. The way ad-blockers work is that they see requests from a web page to other domains, particularly known ad-serving domains, so they reject those requests, take those elements out of the page, etc. But they don't alter self-hosted images. So if a web page has a bunch of JPGs which are really ads and not just helpful illustrations, and embeds those into the page, the ad-blocker has no way of knowing these are actually ads, and can't block them. But these places never do this because they want to outsource the advertising to someone else, and the advertisers want to not just show ads, but also track how many times the ad was served, who it was served to, how long it was viewed, and lots of other information that isn't necessary for advertising (and was never a factor back when ads were simply printed on newspaper or shown on TV). In short, the advertisers insist on spying on people now. This should not be tolerated or excused, ever.