I use ad blockers and open source privacy focused software whenever I can but occasionally I have to use computers that don’t belong to me or an older phone where my usual applications aren’t installed and seeing all the advertisements just feels dirty and dystopian.
I think the worst ads are the text to speech ones that say “Download this app today”. The unblinking energenic people saying you can make a living at home are probably a close second.
…just imagine if they were all doing something productive instead.
Props to @DogMuffins@discuss.tchncs.de for helping to discourage their parasitic behavior and ushering them toward career paths that might actually utilize their potential in a positive way!
Lots of the web is still run by advertising revenue. I know a few of the sites I like to go to rely on advertisting. I certainly don’t consider them parasites like you do, they’re just working within the system, because the alternative is to not exist, and I’d rather not have that.
That or force a subscription to use which I think nobody really wants
False dichotomy.
There’s loads of ways for content producers to get paid.
I don’t think that’s true at all.
If advertising didn’t exist then content producers and content consumers would embrace an alternative funding model because everyone wants content.
Enough to pay for it? Nope. I’ve been on the other sides of this equation, that is a very naive take.
Enough to pay for it … if it’s good enough to be worth paying for.
It’s that last part that kills most content creators. There’s people whose work I’ll idly browse as long as I don’t have to pay for it (even with ads: I love my ad blocker!). But you’re right, 99.44% of content creators whose work I idly look over would not get a single red cent out of me from direct payment.
So maybe it would be good to switch to payment-only schemes. That would kill off the crap creators and leave those behind who make something people think is worth paying for.
I mean … I still pay for books and music. I do pay for content. Just not shit content.
I’ll give you an example. I use a site called lacemarket which is a buying/selling site for a niche hobby of Japanese street fashion. It will never be popular enough that enough people would be using the site in order for them to make enough to pay for hosting the site.
So they’re forced to run ad’s cause they have no other way to keep the site up. The owners are also not taking a percentage of people’s sales so they can continue to bring in people who want to use the site. But in order to not take money from the sellers, the only other option they have to keep the site running is ad funding.
It sucks but its too niche to do it any other way.
If it is that niche, it is not a self-sustaining business model (with the evidence for this being that they instead have to sell their users to third parties).
Perhaps it’s just better left to die than to propagate an economic model that commoditizes human beings who aren’t even part of the business?
no, its a hobby community and its been running since at least 2014. There is a demand for it but only in that community.
So letting it die wouldn’t be an option. It’s not a ton of people but I can think of lots of communities that have like 300 ish people in them who would be fucking livid if that site went down.
That’s the very first result I found.
And you need ads to support this!?
You mean you’re a content producer that couldn’t get people to support you directly? Did ad revenue solve the problem?
If advertising didn’t exist other funding models would be embraced.
You just think that because advertising exists as an option. If that circumstance was different, everything else would be too.
Alright so journalists and reviewers can fuck off, then?
Journalists don’t make money from advertising revenue. Reviewers can fuck off.
Actually, since the Internet began to be public domain, physical newspapers has lower and lower sales. Since people can find the news online. This is one reason behind ads online.
Today, many local areas have nobody that works as a journalist, no local news=local politicians can do whatever they want without anybody question them.
So, what do you prefer? A community that has journalists asking the tough questions, digging for dirt or a community where corruption can flow free?
Support your local newspaper/news station with a subscription and use adblock.
Actually I personally believe that public funded media is vastly better than independent. Private media has prudent itself incapable of being anything other than corporate / conservative shills.
There are no more local newspapers or stations for all practical purposes. 70% of the UK’s “local” news media (print or broadcast) are owned by four media conglomerates. Most “local” television media in the USA is owned by the (right wing asshole collection) Sinclair Broadcast Group or (fellow right wing asshole collection) Rosebud Media. About 2/3 of “local” newspapers in the USA aren’t locally-owned or operated and don’t hire local reporters. Of these, about half are owned by 25 companies (themselves part of larger conglomerates in twisted, difficult-to-unravel relationships).
So it’s kind of difficult to support your local newspaper/station. Because it’s a unicorn for most people.
I want to agree but I live in a place with a popular local newspaper that moved online and it’s still corrupt as ever here.
I’m beginning to think you lack fundamental knowledge of how the internet sort of… works…
Oh my sweet summer child…