> Newspapers have been subsidised by advertising for years (the cost of the paper basically covers distribution costs). That never made them any less useful. A

> Newspapers have been subsidised by advertising for years (the cost of the paper basically covers distribution costs). That never made them any less useful. Are you kidding? I can come up with better, but John Oliver is funny: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDylgzybWAw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDylgzybWAw > Yes, I understand "if you don't pay for it you are the product". I think that's bunk - or rather, I don't think that makes it any less useful. That's like saying smoking's long term carcinogenic effects don't make it any less enjoyable. By the way, advertising doesn't subsidize anything. Advertisers get their money from us. There is no free lunch. In fact, advertising gives us lunch that is less tasty, costs more, and gives us food poisoning: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8372640 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8372640