4 ms·
My point is that nearly the entire consumer internet is funded by adverts, the first bit was simply humerous. Further, advertising is pervasive and annoying (ev
by vonklaus 11y ago
My point is that nearly the entire consumer internet is funded by adverts, the first bit was simply humerous. Further, advertising is pervasive and annoying (even with blocking tools) but it is mostly found in private places. I don't think it is immoral to sell ads on your own website, radio station or media channel. If you dont consume free content you would see way less adverts.
- Dylan16807 11y agoAnd yet cable has exactly as many ads as free TV.
- vonklaus 11y ago> you would see way less adverts. Cable is a special situation. They get paid by our tax dollars both directly and with tax breaks, they sell content to us and they also sell advert space to companies. Advertising isn't really a question of "morality" I would allege that logic, morality, and competitive business tactics all align with the sentiment that ISPs should be immediately decoupled from cable companies and we should allow market entrants to compete there. Cable companies are ruthless tax collectors and deeply entrenched in political circles. It is hard to disrupt this as well, but success in winning a free internet is something I think is truly worth fighting for.
- kuschku 11y agoWatch european publicly financed TV. Take the BBC, or the German networks (which are the largest publicly financed TV networks worldwide, btw). No ads (or at maximum 3 per day), consistently at least the same quality as private TV or higher, and just a lot more interesting content. Take arte, for example. Or ZDF Neo. Sooo many interesting documentaries that are actually science and not just http://i.imgur.com/FcS4JJ2.jpg http://i.imgur.com/FcS4JJ2.jpg