1. 5
  1.  

  2. 8

    This reduces the ability for publishers to continue creating free content and threatens the sustainability of the web ecosystem.

    Maybe they deserve to go bankrupt? Maybe the web needs to find a better way of monetizing content than advertising and stalking users?

    Maybe, perish the thought, content shouldn’t be free?

    1. [Comment from banned user removed]

      1. 1

        Given a choice, 100% of real audience participants would block 100% of ads in every medium.

        Sure, if it were as easy to have no ads, I’d have none. However, I wouldn’t feel the need to install an ad-blocker if they weren’t so damn intrusive.

        Advertising creates nothing. It does not introduce new value to the world

        “Advertising” includes e.g. newspaper classified sections. A common question is “I want X; who provides it”; the answer is valuable.

      2. 1

        You had me right up until the last sentence

        1. 3

          Well, let me put it this way:

          If somebody wants content to be available and to entirely eat the cost of creation/distribution out of their own pocket, that’s fine and laudable! A lot of people host blogs with those rules. @jcs does the same thing with Lobsters here.

          But for content that costs real money to serve (either because of price to produce, or price to serve to millions of eyeballs), we should maybe look at ways of charging for it that don’t require the iron-lung of advertising and chum.

          1. 1

            The cost of distribution could be covered by moving to a P2P topology, while the cost of creation could be subsidized by a basic income. And both ideas are not too far fetched in the current political climate.

        2. 1

          I would add the word “some”. :)