Hacker News Reader

Comment by ouid | Hacker News Reader

What service exactly are these web developers even providing in the first place? The site is built. The servers are running. Any technical upgrades are almost certainly to the advertising machinery, and if you want to make back your server costs, you probably already manage that with donations. The internet is cheap as dirt.

If you are trying to make more than that, beyond of course the actual work that you put in, the reason you want to do so is because of the massive capital investment that you have to justify. Capital investment that was attracted because of the promise of advertising revenue.

View on HN

You obviously have no clue, nor respect, of what efforts go into substantive websites that create original content. Just because you found a technical way to avoid advertising doesn't mean that you morally deserve to receive free content. All you're doing is killing the Internet so that all you'll end up with is Facebook where you can't get rid of the ads and small, irrelevant websites that resemble what existed in the 1990's. Enjoy.

A webservice is not "content".

Do you even know what you're arguing about?

Ajit? Is that you?

Advertisers and their morality.. It's not less moral for me to get you're content for free as it is for you to create content to get my attention, and potentially my money. Just as you have right to do everything in your power to make money on your content, I have a right to do with that content whatever I want, and that includes stripping it from any and all ads.. If you don't like it you can hide it behind a paywall, DRM it, or get out of business.

Thanks for providing a recipe of a society where everybody hates each other because everybody is trying to "make money" off of each other. In reality, you're getting free content for which you're "paying" with having your attention bothered for a microsecond by an ad that's barely in your field of view. The horror is unprecedented and that is why this is what you give your attention and emotion to, not all those other horrible things that the world lives with. You're spoiled and you have no real worries, so you create a boogie man that you fight because it gives life meaning. That's my impression of this topic.

> You're spoiled and you have no real worries, so you create a boogie man that you fight because it gives life meaning.

You don't know shit about me, about my worries and about what give my life meaning so gtfo.

Have you even read the original blog article?

>small, irrelevant websites that resemble what existed in the 1990s.

I take issue with this statement. The websites back then were small but they were not irrelevant. If anything they featured more relevant and original content than the majority of sites today. Combined with the tech of today like free CDNs I don't think we'd be much worse off.

I would enjoy it. I doubt you would enjoy one day getting some random malware through your ads that you leave unblocked.

And stuff like Wikipedia which runs ad free off donations.

Honestly, I'm okay with that, most info I get is from Wikipedia, scientific papers or tiny random blogs. What sites are you afraid of it killing? Junk news sites? Reddit? I can live without them. I struggle to think of any with significant value.

And what's Reddit but consolidated newsgroups within a single entity (and the ability to vote).

If only one could use a normal news reader to access it.

Indeed - I think ad-paid centralization (largely for ease of use sake) effectively drove a lot of great stuff off the internet.

I miss the 90s internet.

Mostly HTML, what little java or flash there was was usually trash video games sites.

You'd search (Lycos!) for content and what you got was raw data from crazies all over the world. Not the curated "don't hurt yourself" BS hits you get in the first 100 !g results. Or 100 sites trying to sell you trash.

The 90s internet was many the best of an otherwise weak decade! (and Seinfeld, of course)

EDIT: And the content was avilable with 28k to 56k modem. Today I can't even check my email (why not??? grrr) with that.

Wikipedia survives without advertising and has some of the best content available anywhere. Some sites paywall, and for specialist content that’s actually valuable, that will continue to be a viable model. And static sites are cheaper than ever, keeping plenty of niche content available. Affiliate advertising is still a viable model and there are even more ways to monetize content that don’t require display advertising. Clickbait might die a miserable death, and thank God for that. Valuable content will survive.

We don’t live in a world of Faustian bargains where we have to put up with excessive pollution—either of the informational or physical sort—as an unavoidable byproduct of value. There are better solutions out there, and all it takes to realize them is to take the minds that are wasted on tricking people into seeing or clicking on ads and put them to work on more useful endeavors.

That sounds great! The truly useful sites will survive with various combinations of subscriptions, donations, affiliate links, and micropayments. The rest can go away and nothing of value will be lost.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com