3 ms·
It's quite representative of the problem if you can't identify the difference between Wikipedia - a non-profit which is entirely ad-free and runs exclusively on
by jamesisaac 12y ago
It's quite representative of the problem if you can't identify the difference between Wikipedia - a non-profit which is entirely ad-free and runs exclusively on donations, compared with the majority of other free sites which are funded by subjecting their visitors to advertising. No wonder Wikipedia has so to push so hard with its annual donation drives, if people can't even recognise the benefits of keeping it free from commercialism.
Hulu is an example which mixes both approaches - clearly an $8/mo premium subscription isn't enough to support their business model, so it has to be supplemented with ads. Not sure why this needs explaining. TV is obviously an industry very tightly coupled with ads, making it more difficult to disrupt with a fully ad-free approach.
- icebraining 12y agoI can identify the difference - the cliché can't! That's my whole point! Wikipedia is the proof the paying is not always required to not "be the product", unlike claimed. Hulu proves that it's also not sufficient.
- jamesisaac 12y agoFair enough - I thought you were claiming the cliché was generally incorrect, not that there are a few exceptions which break it. Obviously I can't argue with that. It's intended as a rule of thumb and applies to the vast majority of the internet. Especially if you count a donation-driven site like shareware software - an encouraged, but optional, request for payment.