4 ms·

> "The alternative to ads alongside my content is ads inside my content." The alternative to ads is no ads. I keep various ad- and tracker- blockers on becaus

> "The alternative to ads alongside my content is ads inside my content." The alternative to ads is no ads. I keep various ad- and tracker- blockers on because I prefer a world that is not polluted by advertising, and in which privacy is respected. Advertising versus no content is a false dichotomy, just like advertising versus no sport, or copyright versus no music. It is this sheer propoganda the systematically prevents us from having a meaningful debate on the subject. I do see it as a moral issue: I find advertising in all its current forms unethical. If you disagree, please have the courtesy of allowing for an honest discussion instead of spreading FUD about how horrific the world would be without advertising. Also, the advertising industry is not going to draw the line at "native advertising", regardless. It won't stop until it has plastered the planet with advertising. Only the law and countermeasures have ever limited advertising. tl;dr: There is already shit all over the house, it's naive to think they will stop at the kitchen.

realityking 11y ago
Serious question, how do you propose creators are to be paid? Paywall? Paid for content? Internet tax?
- makeitsuckless 11y ago
  It's not a serious question, it's cheap rhetoric. Just because I'm against the pollution caused by chemical plants dumping unprocessed waste into rivers, doesn't mean I have to come up with solutions that allows the chemical industry to retain the same profit margins. Personally, if I want to get paid for something I create, I ask for something in return, usually money. I could be wrong, but afaik that's the way we have done things for a very long time. "If you want this, you also have to swallow this pile of shit, hell, if you even so much as glance in the general direction we'll start throwing shit at you" is a relatively recent business model, and I have a problem with it. The onus is not on me to come up with alternatives for people who don't like the effort and/or profit margins involved in the way we've traded and bartered goods and services for millennia and prefer to throw shit at people.
  - 72deluxe 11y ago
    I suppose the difficulty is that servers on the Internet are available publicly and therefore people expect free content from them. The problem is that people put content on there for £0.00 and we have expected it to be that cost (ie, nothing) ever since. It is obvious, however, that hosting servers is not without cost, nor is creating content without cost. The solution would therefore be to: a. not offer content free, b. attempt to support it with adverts Since option B is disliked by so many, the only logical option is A. I believe we should probably have a reintroduction/introduction of HTTP 402. I think that would make sense.
  - realityking 11y ago
    I have an issue with people who want to consume content but offer nothing in return. Why do you think you're entitled to read the New York Times without paying for it either with money (paywall) or attention (ads). That's why I think the blanket use of ad lockers is unethical. Note I'm not saying the way we currently deal with ads is great or anything. They violate the users malware, are often infected with malware and sometimes make site plain unusable (usually not something intended by the site's owner) Since you seem to prefer the paywall, let me ask how many paid subscriptions do you have for websites which are otherwise supported via ads? (e.g. New York Times, Wall Street Journal, ArsTechnica, etc.)
- learnstats2 11y ago
  Serious answer: if you value a creator's work, you should pay them for it.
  - realityking 11y ago
    But if I don't value it (e.g. Buzfeed) I should still be free to consume it without paying?
    - learnstats2 11y ago
      I don't want to single out Buzzfeed, but if ads are able to sustain an industry that nobody values - then that's not for the good of mankind. The people employed in that field are not doing something valuable.

realityking 11y ago

Serious question, how do you propose creators are to be paid? Paywall? Paid for content? Internet tax?

makeitsuckless 11y ago
It's not a serious question, it's cheap rhetoric. Just because I'm against the pollution caused by chemical plants dumping unprocessed waste into rivers, doesn't mean I have to come up with solutions that allows the chemical industry to retain the same profit margins. Personally, if I want to get paid for something I create, I ask for something in return, usually money. I could be wrong, but afaik that's the way we have done things for a very long time. "If you want this, you also have to swallow this pile of shit, hell, if you even so much as glance in the general direction we'll start throwing shit at you" is a relatively recent business model, and I have a problem with it. The onus is not on me to come up with alternatives for people who don't like the effort and/or profit margins involved in the way we've traded and bartered goods and services for millennia and prefer to throw shit at people.
- 72deluxe 11y ago
  I suppose the difficulty is that servers on the Internet are available publicly and therefore people expect free content from them. The problem is that people put content on there for £0.00 and we have expected it to be that cost (ie, nothing) ever since. It is obvious, however, that hosting servers is not without cost, nor is creating content without cost. The solution would therefore be to: a. not offer content free, b. attempt to support it with adverts Since option B is disliked by so many, the only logical option is A. I believe we should probably have a reintroduction/introduction of HTTP 402. I think that would make sense.
- realityking 11y ago
  I have an issue with people who want to consume content but offer nothing in return. Why do you think you're entitled to read the New York Times without paying for it either with money (paywall) or attention (ads). That's why I think the blanket use of ad lockers is unethical. Note I'm not saying the way we currently deal with ads is great or anything. They violate the users malware, are often infected with malware and sometimes make site plain unusable (usually not something intended by the site's owner) Since you seem to prefer the paywall, let me ask how many paid subscriptions do you have for websites which are otherwise supported via ads? (e.g. New York Times, Wall Street Journal, ArsTechnica, etc.)
learnstats2 11y ago
Serious answer: if you value a creator's work, you should pay them for it.
- realityking 11y ago
  But if I don't value it (e.g. Buzfeed) I should still be free to consume it without paying?
  - learnstats2 11y ago
    I don't want to single out Buzzfeed, but if ads are able to sustain an industry that nobody values - then that's not for the good of mankind. The people employed in that field are not doing something valuable.