3 ms·

The internet is not free. Somebody is paying for those ads. And this somebody is us, collectively. And you know what? We are paying more than if we would pay fo

by amelius 9mo ago

The internet is not free. Somebody is paying for those ads. And this somebody is us, collectively. And you know what? We are paying more than if we would pay for these services directly, because advertising companies are taking a cut. And on top of that we are paying with our data.

yacthing 9mo ago
This is about as useful of an argument as when people say taxpayer funded services aren't free. Those who are wealthier pay more into the tax system, allow those who are less well off to gain access to things they normally wouldn't. This is a good thing. Likewise, those who are wealthier are buying more products that are advertised, allowing those who are less well off to gain access to the internet for closer-to-free. This is also a good thing. We can put limits on how advertising is done, give control over your data, etc etc. But the fundamentals stay the same. So no: paying your way towards internet products won't save the average person money.
- jonahx 9mo ago
  So the hellscape that is the ad-based internet economy is a good thing because it's an indirect form of wealth redistribution? That's a new one!
  - amelius 9mo ago
    It's also a pricey form of wealth redistribution :(
- amelius 9mo ago
  > Those who are wealthier pay more into the tax system, allow those who are less well off to gain access to things they normally wouldn't. This is a good thing. And what if there was a company (let's call it Google) that was extracting huge sums of money out of this social security/welfare system? Would this make you think that perhaps something was wrong about it? And that the system could be more efficient without this company?
  - yacthing 8mo ago
    There are inefficiencies with both. In a perfect world, yeah, it'd be more efficient to not have capitalism. You'd just have to get around inefficient labor allocation, increased fraud, etc. At least for capitalism, the amount extracted by ad companies is known and taxed. It's not fair to compare things in practice (captialism), and in theory (whatever you're suggesting).

by amelius 9mo ago

yacthing 9mo ago

This is about as useful of an argument as when people say taxpayer funded services aren't free. Those who are wealthier pay more into the tax system, allow those who are less well off to gain access to things they normally wouldn't. This is a good thing. Likewise, those who are wealthier are buying more products that are advertised, allowing those who are less well off to gain access to the internet for closer-to-free. This is also a good thing. We can put limits on how advertising is done, give control over your data, etc etc. But the fundamentals stay the same. So no: paying your way towards internet products won't save the average person money.

jonahx 9mo ago
So the hellscape that is the ad-based internet economy is a good thing because it's an indirect form of wealth redistribution? That's a new one!
- amelius 9mo ago
  It's also a pricey form of wealth redistribution :(
amelius 9mo ago
> Those who are wealthier pay more into the tax system, allow those who are less well off to gain access to things they normally wouldn't. This is a good thing. And what if there was a company (let's call it Google) that was extracting huge sums of money out of this social security/welfare system? Would this make you think that perhaps something was wrong about it? And that the system could be more efficient without this company?
- yacthing 8mo ago
  There are inefficiencies with both. In a perfect world, yeah, it'd be more efficient to not have capitalism. You'd just have to get around inefficient labor allocation, increased fraud, etc. At least for capitalism, the amount extracted by ad companies is known and taxed. It's not fair to compare things in practice (captialism), and in theory (whatever you're suggesting).