4 ms·

I think any site that wants to have an ad-free version that subscribers pay should do so without Google's involvement. I cannot imagine anyone voluntarily givin

I think any site that wants to have an ad-free version that subscribers pay should do so without Google's involvement. I cannot imagine anyone voluntarily giving money to Google for something like ad filtering when ad blocking extensions to Google's own browser accomplish this for free. What I do see as realistic is someone loving The Onion or WikiHow so much that they pay for additional features that enhance your ability to use that site or enjoy your experience on it. For example, Urban Dictionary offers an option to print any definition onto a t-shirt or mug (although I don't know how successful this model has been for them, especially considering how vulgar most popular UD definitions are). Right now content creators are implementing freemium in an unattractive way - I completely stopped reading wsj.com after recent changes to their paywall, and I will immediately close a news article that throws a video in my face. But if the motley banners of Adwords are merely converted into "thank you" messages after I pay a couple bucks every month, the website hasn't suddenly become attractive to me, just less unattractive.

opinali 12y ago
One problem with paying individual websites is that you don't really want to create an account, providing your credit card information, to dozens of sites do you? What you suggest works well for heavily used websites (e.g. my daily feed of Ars Technica) but completely fails for stuff you visit every one in a while (e.g. my every-couple-months visits to The Onion). The existing ads infrastructure is almost perfectly suited to solve this problem. And when you compare this to ad blocking, hopefully you realize that ad blocking is not the most ethical thing to do; you are effectively stealing content. Most ad-supported websites clearly forbid this with TOS wording like: "The copying, reproduction, ..., or other use or change by you, directly or indirectly, of any such Website Content, including but not limited to the removal or alteration of advertising, is strictly prohibited" (Ars). Not all websites are good players either, but if the advertising practices of specific sites are bad then your only ethical choice is to not visit them at all.

opinali 12y ago

One problem with paying individual websites is that you don't really want to create an account, providing your credit card information, to dozens of sites do you? What you suggest works well for heavily used websites (e.g. my daily feed of Ars Technica) but completely fails for stuff you visit every one in a while (e.g. my every-couple-months visits to The Onion). The existing ads infrastructure is almost perfectly suited to solve this problem. And when you compare this to ad blocking, hopefully you realize that ad blocking is not the most ethical thing to do; you are effectively stealing content. Most ad-supported websites clearly forbid this with TOS wording like: "The copying, reproduction, ..., or other use or change by you, directly or indirectly, of any such Website Content, including but not limited to the removal or alteration of advertising, is strictly prohibited" (Ars). Not all websites are good players either, but if the advertising practices of specific sites are bad then your only ethical choice is to not visit them at all.