Comment by zero_shift | Hacker News Reader

Comment by zero_shift | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> An ecommerce, a newspaper or a blog should have no reason to execute client side code to render.

The main reason is advertising, which is ultimately how this web content is paid for.

But there could be alternatives. We could create static img elements that could securely and discretely record whether they were viewed by a human (to prevent ad fraud). We could support simple animations and interactivity in a secure, resource-friendly way. And we could allow these to be disabled by user agents (e.g. epileptics).

Could newspapers exist without online advertising? Possibly, but only in specialised niches. Consumers have shown that they will always seek the cheapest, most accessible forms of information - even when provided by highly biased, unreliable sources.

The danger to killing online advertising is that it creates a world where the only people who can afford to publish are those with other interests - plutocrats, politicians, churches - and who will inevitably bankroll news only to further political ends.

Static img elements with built-in surveillance and tracking, unblockable and intransparent, on a browser level? You have to be kidding.

The ad-based web economy had produced the current publishing dystopia in the first place and prevents the development of a sane business model.

> The ad-based web economy had produced the current publishing dystopia in the first place and prevents the development of a sane business model.

Ah, the 'better business model' argument! A curious specimen, men often speak its name, but rarely agree how it looks or its habitat. Is it a donation model? Wait, no, that doesn't work. A paywall? Ah, but you want content for free. Philanthropist support? Oh, you don't like the conflict of interest. Micropayments? I suppose you have some cunning way of mitigating the transaction costs, without computationally expensive solutions like bitcoin.

Here's my proposition: post a model that is known to work, known to scale, for general purpose content, and you will have a startup on your hands. Otherwise - I ask you to withdraw your comment.

See Netflix, spotify. Those or others will come for content when ads are gone.

But then why haven't "Spotify for Journalism" projects ever worked? How does a business go from $2 per paper to 0.2c per article? Why are so many artists so unhappy with their meagre Spotify royalties? I think this falls under my "proven to scale" condition.

[In reply to the below - as we have reached the thread limit: there will _always_ be free competition. The problem is: without advertising, the only players left will be those with deep pockets, and deep interests to protect - the state, churches, oligarchs and political groups]

Because there is infinite free / ad-based competition crowding out paid services.

Regarding royalties: My understanding from school is that radio royalties are paid out by samplings from radio playlists. If you song was in the sample then you got paid, otherwise, nope!

Don't the current streaming tech pay artists per literal play? If so, wouldn't that mean more money to the artists since all plays are counted?

My understanding is a bit outdated now perhaps, but would like to understand better if someone knows better :-)

>The danger to killing online advertising is that it creates a world where the only people who can afford to publish are those with other interests - plutocrats, politicians, churches - and who will inevitably bankroll news only to further political ends.

You say that as if server space is super expensive, but it isn't, certainly not compared to other forms of media. It's entirely possible to publish to the web without being an elite, people and businesses did it for years before advertising on the web became a thing.

> people and businesses did it for years

The people were hobbyists and the businesses had other projects.

Relying on "interested members of the public" for news is how people like Alex Jones get started.

>The people were hobbyists and the businesses had other projects.

Yes, but my point is that publishing to the web doesn't require advertising on the web. Nor does advertising on the web require javascript.

>Relying on "interested members of the public" for news is how people like Alex Jones get started.

It's how a lot of people got started. You seem to be implying some relationship between the presence of political extremism and the absence of advertising, but I don't see any evidence the two are correlated.

The point is: large businesses have reputations. They are knowable and generally accountable. They can also protect themselves legally.

Semi-anonymous writers posting blogs are none of those.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com