4 ms·
> Out of curiosity, since several comments here complained about the paywall ("paywalls are nsfl"), and an equal number or more on HN run adblockers and/or open
by jordigh 12y ago
> Out of curiosity, since several comments here complained about the paywall ("paywalls are nsfl"), and an equal number or more on HN run adblockers and/or openly dislike ads in general (the whole "you are the product" meme), how do you think newspapers should monetize?
I adblock aggressively, and I don't think it's my capitalist duty to watch ads for products in order to create wants for products I don't need.[1] I'm very bothered by the idea of being "nice" to a site by watching ads. I don't want to help a site by watching ads; that's supposed to help a third party by creating a need in me to buy something, not the website I actually care about. I much prefer cut-and-dry paywalls or donation buttons.
Thus, I'm fine with newspapers having paywalls. If that's what sells, let them paywall everything. It's their prerogative. However, there are also plenty of unpaywalled sources. At the moment, most news can be obtained from the web without paying, and I doubt that this will change. I don't have a solution for the news industry, but guilting me into watching ads will never work.
Paywalls for academic journals are an entirely different problem, since in many cases the journal "editors" are in fact rather parisitic and contribute nothing but prestige, while the actual work is done by others and is unpaid. Those paywalls are terrible. But you made something and you don't want me to see it until I pay? That's fine.
[1] And I almost never "need" anything. "The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation." If I need something, I'll know it. I don't need ads to tell me what to need. I therefore find the entire premise behind advertising pernicious. Only when I want to buy something, I'll look at ads, so until I actually have a need or want to buy something, don't shove ads down my throat or guilt me into watching them.
- sbergot 12y agoIt is interesting to interpret not using adblock as capitalist duty. I see it more as a way to respect the terms of the content producer. "But the page is bloated and unusable with ads". Then refuse the contract. Use another service. Inventing your own terms about the cost of something produced by someone else is never ok. "guilting me into watching ads will never work". It is great that you accept your own behavior. That doesn't make it right.
- jordigh 12y ago> It is interesting to interpret not using adblock as capitalist duty. I see it more as a way to respect the terms of the content producer. The author has no lordship over my computer or my mailbox. I can toss out junk mail. I can even more easily program my computer to toss out ads. Programmability is a very natural feature of a computer, so why not use it? My home, my computer, my rules. If you make it more difficult for me to remove ads, then yes, I will eventually stop getting anything from you at all. I'm fine with this arms race. If you want to make your ads so obnoxious as to make them very difficult to ignore, then I'm fine with ignoring all of you. I will never be fine with having consumerism forcibly shoved down my throat. As long as I can program my computer to ignore ads, we can enjoy an uneasy armistice. If you give me a donation or subscription button for your website or service, we can both be much happier.
- sbergot 12y agoBe sure that this arm race is happening. How do you find the overall quality of web media today? Are you satisfied? As a business, once you realize that 1% of your users are watching ads, what are you going to do? You can either go for a paywall, integrate sponsored content provided as articles, or aim at the less tech savy internet users with click-bait articles. So what is your solution? You seem satisfied with the current trend of poor quality articles and businesses slowly going bankrupt while this "uneasy armistice" lasts. Why would you be at war with those websites anyway?
- jordigh 12y ago> As a business, once you realize that 1% of your users are watching ads, what are you going to do? A paywall seems like a fine solution. Manipulating people into wanting things they don't need is not.
- Goronmon 12y agoThe author has no lordship over my computer or my mailbox. I can toss out junk mail. I can even more easily program my computer to toss out ads. Programmability is a very natural feature of a computer, so why not use it? My home, my computer, my rules. This reasoning falls apart pretty quickly when you take into account that you are adblocking content you specifically requested. Effectively, your justifications are the same as those who pirate media, "Give me your content, but I don't feel I should have to pay for it." Pretending there is a difference is a bit dishonest, in my opinion.
- Retra 12y agoI find it disheartening that the common talk of ads is so distanced from the original social justification for ads: to educate and inform consumers. Primarily, to help ensure that the economy engages in the proper degree of competition. Unfortunately, ads are so full of misinformation and propaganda that there is no hope to be informed by them, so they do not help with the original goal: the very thing that makes them acceptable practice. An advertisement should inform and educate -- something that increasingly requires communication _without bias_ (how radical!)