8 ms·

> if too many people decide ads are too taxing for them to view, the content can no longer be supported. and to me that is ok, that's how people will learn to

by column 11y ago

> if too many people decide ads are too taxing for them to view, the content can no longer be supported. and to me that is ok, that's how people will learn to either: - pay for quality content - enable ads for quality content - get free crowd-sourced shit ala reddit

austenallred 11y ago
> - get free crowd-sourced shit ala reddit You must realize, of course, that millions of dollars are being poured into reddit every year, and that reddit makes it's money from ads. If you're "crowdsourcing" something that means a platform is being built, and platforms are expensive to build and difficult to maintain.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  Also, Reddit isn't shit if you abandon the front-page and stick to subreddits on topics that interest you :).
TeMPOraL 11y ago
You say that like the only content worth looking at is the one you pay for, where in fact the opposite is usually true. From my observation there is an inverse relationship between quality/trustworthiness of the side and the amount/annoyingness of ads it displays. So yeah, I'd be totally fine with "content no longer being supported", because this means most of the crap will be gone. Wikipedia will stay and keep asking for donations. Articles that are any good will live because those are published by bloggers who care about the topic, not the revenue, and they tend to bankroll their sites from their own pockets anyway. Companies will still pay for their websites. Communities will still create useful content because they never did it for the money and the first place. Gone will be all that malicious crap we're being served by advertisers. And that probably includes most of the news sites, but I will say: good riddance.
- column 11y ago
  I totally agree with your second paragraph. And about your first sentence, I am talking about " bloggers who care about the topic, BUT RELY ON the revenue", I invite you to re-read my comment with that in mind. :)

by column 11y ago

austenallred 11y ago

> - get free crowd-sourced shit ala reddit You must realize, of course, that millions of dollars are being poured into reddit every year, and that reddit makes it's money from ads. If you're "crowdsourcing" something that means a platform is being built, and platforms are expensive to build and difficult to maintain.

TeMPOraL 11y ago
Also, Reddit isn't shit if you abandon the front-page and stick to subreddits on topics that interest you :).

TeMPOraL 11y ago

You say that like the only content worth looking at is the one you pay for, where in fact the opposite is usually true. From my observation there is an inverse relationship between quality/trustworthiness of the side and the amount/annoyingness of ads it displays. So yeah, I'd be totally fine with "content no longer being supported", because this means most of the crap will be gone. Wikipedia will stay and keep asking for donations. Articles that are any good will live because those are published by bloggers who care about the topic, not the revenue, and they tend to bankroll their sites from their own pockets anyway. Companies will still pay for their websites. Communities will still create useful content because they never did it for the money and the first place. Gone will be all that malicious crap we're being served by advertisers. And that probably includes most of the news sites, but I will say: good riddance.

column 11y ago
I totally agree with your second paragraph. And about your first sentence, I am talking about " bloggers who care about the topic, BUT RELY ON the revenue", I invite you to re-read my comment with that in mind. :)