4 ms·

If we make it difficult for services to be ad funded, perhaps alternative methods of funding will emerge. Perhaps alternative methods of service delivery will e

If we make it difficult for services to be ad funded, perhaps alternative methods of funding will emerge. Perhaps alternative methods of service delivery will emerge too which don't require large companies to build their own data centres (peer to peer, distributed). I don't get rid of ads on my systems because they're annoying. I do it because they introduce massive single points of failure, they add massive centralised attack vectors which have in the past been exploited, and will be in the future too, and because they slow down web browsing. If you care about security, you use an ad blocker.

cw0 12y ago
The problem is that the alternative to ads is a paywall.
- mike-cardwell 12y ago
  That's only a problem as long as ad funded versions exist. Get rid of the ad funded versions and it's no longer a problem, as the non-ad-funded versions will no longer have to compete with them. Plus, many useful services will still have free versions, and then provided paid upgrades. Plus, many useful services will stop being centralised, distributed, free, peer to peer versions will be created that cost nothing to host, and they will be popular, because there are no ad-funded versions to compete.
- alandarev 12y ago
  I will happilly pay for the service, as much, as advertisers earn on me. Sounds fair, and I doubt it will be a large sum, based on how often I click on ad's.
- orkoden 12y ago
  There are many different kinds of paywall. Some sites have early access to content and the ability to comment only for paying users. Others have just one simple ad on the page, that is controlled by themselves, not a third party network.
- driverdan 12y ago
  That's a false dichotomy that assumes there are only two solutions, ads or a paywall. There are other solutions, including ones that haven't been invented yet.
- anonymousab 12y ago
  The lovely thing about the internet is that there is an ever-increasing horde of people who will put their content out for free. For each purely ad-dependent site that goes, several sites - from free to paid - will take their place.
jacobgreenleaf 12y ago
Then again, maybe the alternative methods of funding won't emerge and AdBlock will destroy the web as we know it.
- mike-cardwell 12y ago
  The web is already full of stuff that is free and is not ad-funded. There are already many services that have free versions with paid advanced versions. If everyone used ad-block, it would change the web. In some ways for the better, in some ways for the worse. It wouldn't destroy it.
- pjc50 12y ago
  Fine, we'll go back to the 1996 internet with far fewer ads. I note HN seems to be doing just fine without them.
  - Sae5waip 12y ago
    HN is a YC marketing tool, it pays for itself quite easily.
    - zo1 12y ago
      Well there is one option for funding websites. I'm sure ingenious people will come up with dozens more. Instead of how it is now where they are forced to squander their creativity making sites that are ad-funded. Not all of the web is ad-funded, and it's just a matter of us giving that part of the web a chance.

cw0 12y ago

The problem is that the alternative to ads is a paywall.

mike-cardwell 12y ago
That's only a problem as long as ad funded versions exist. Get rid of the ad funded versions and it's no longer a problem, as the non-ad-funded versions will no longer have to compete with them. Plus, many useful services will still have free versions, and then provided paid upgrades. Plus, many useful services will stop being centralised, distributed, free, peer to peer versions will be created that cost nothing to host, and they will be popular, because there are no ad-funded versions to compete.
alandarev 12y ago
I will happilly pay for the service, as much, as advertisers earn on me. Sounds fair, and I doubt it will be a large sum, based on how often I click on ad's.
orkoden 12y ago
There are many different kinds of paywall. Some sites have early access to content and the ability to comment only for paying users. Others have just one simple ad on the page, that is controlled by themselves, not a third party network.
driverdan 12y ago
That's a false dichotomy that assumes there are only two solutions, ads or a paywall. There are other solutions, including ones that haven't been invented yet.
anonymousab 12y ago
The lovely thing about the internet is that there is an ever-increasing horde of people who will put their content out for free. For each purely ad-dependent site that goes, several sites - from free to paid - will take their place.

jacobgreenleaf 12y ago

Then again, maybe the alternative methods of funding won't emerge and AdBlock will destroy the web as we know it.

mike-cardwell 12y ago
The web is already full of stuff that is free and is not ad-funded. There are already many services that have free versions with paid advanced versions. If everyone used ad-block, it would change the web. In some ways for the better, in some ways for the worse. It wouldn't destroy it.
pjc50 12y ago
Fine, we'll go back to the 1996 internet with far fewer ads. I note HN seems to be doing just fine without them.
- Sae5waip 12y ago
  HN is a YC marketing tool, it pays for itself quite easily.
  - zo1 12y ago
    Well there is one option for funding websites. I'm sure ingenious people will come up with dozens more. Instead of how it is now where they are forced to squander their creativity making sites that are ad-funded. Not all of the web is ad-funded, and it's just a matter of us giving that part of the web a chance.