Comment by p2t2p | Hacker News Reader

Comment by p2t2p | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> Do you ever use WhatsApp? Gone. Google Maps? Gone. Oh, that Guardian article we're discussing right now? Gone

Fine! iMessage and Telegram doesn’t show any adds to me so they go nowhere. If telegram tomorrow says to me - 10$ a year or ads, I gladly pay. Google Maps? Screw this burp of evil anyway, Apple Maps and Here We Go maps are go nowhere any time soon. Guardian? Well, I have adblocker enabled anyway and donate 10$ when I happen to read something well written.

I had an experience recently. One of podcasters that I’m listening to created website and started to treat his podcast more seriously. Also he created a Patreon account with clearly defined goals. I went and had my Patreon account created as soon as I had seen his and now I’m doing a monthly contribution. That guy went to 4K$ in two days.

Why I’m saying this? Well, because all other subscriptions that I have doesn’t provide _that_ value for me so if they all are gone tomorrow, I won’t even notice that.

So, if being free is the only reason people use something to kill time that means that th thing has no value for them ang can and should go away. I have never disabled my Adblock at Forbes and never payed for anything paywalled. I simply didn’t read those articles and I don’t feel like I’ve lost much.

I think it actually for the best if many of tools/services/publishers will go away and people will have more incentive to actually pay for things if they consider th m valuable. And if people are not ready to give a way a cup of coffee for monthly subscription then well.... nobody needs that service then.

I was really happy about WhatsApp at first, that it is a payed service - 30$ a year or something and then Facebook bought it...

What about the people who aren't as rich as you and can't pay $10 for Telegram?

Some people can pay cash for products, others can't and will happily exchange their attention for the service.

You proposal boils down to "rich people like me will be fine, screw the rest".

This is not an argument really. Why then not to ask for free data packages and free smartphones? People can afford an iPhone/Android smartphone which are required t use those services but not the service itself?

That sounds strange for me, it like buying a Bentley and complaining that insurance is too expensive.

My mom's pension is $400 / month (Eastern Europe). She browses the Internet on an old hand-me-down Thinkpad. I suppose she should just get off the Internet if she cannot afford to buy website subscriptions. Anything to make the online experience of wealthy IT professionals better.

Nah, that's not what OP's talking about. OP's talking about services we use on smartphones mostly - WhatsApp, Google Maps.

On that Thinkpad thing, I have multiple questions, just because you're trying to induce emotional response here: does your mom uses Adblock? Did you install it for her? Why can't you buy a subscription for her if you care so much? Do you really want you mom trade her and probably other relatives personal data for access to some shady newspaper with dubious quality of journalism?

> Nah, that's not what OP's talking about. OP's talking about services we use on smartphones mostly - WhatsApp, Google Maps.

No, I'm talking about the entire ad-funded internet. Including, for example, the very Guardian article we're discussing.

So yep, you're suggesting that tszyn's mom should not access content she can't pay for directly.

You forget that most people isn't as rich as you or most HN readers.

>So yep, you're suggesting that tszyn's mom should not access content she can't pay for directly.

You vastly underestimate how much content is created for free. Have you heard of Wikipedia? Do you realize how many people do not choose to monetize their creations?

>You forget that most people isn't as rich as you or most HN readers.

This problem was solved before the internet with libraries. If you can't afford a newspaper article you get it from the library. The same could be accomplished with an online library with daily limited access or subsidized unlimited access for the poor.

Poor people are not good for showing ads to anyway. As ad networks get more and more invasive they will be able to discriminate and refuse to pay the guardian for a view from your mom because there is no expected value there.

> You vastly underestimate how much content is created for free. Have you heard of Wikipedia?

Oh, yes, been an editor there for the past 10 years.

Now what % of the content on the internet do you think is created and delivered in a completely ad-free paywall-free way?

She probably should, with all the viruses, spyware and tracking. The internet is nowadays very user-hostile, in part because of the toxic behavior of the ads industry.

Still, there continue to exist gratis, ad-free services. If you want to avoid that your mom is taken advantage of, point her to those. I would also recommend installing an ad-blocker, but let's be honest, she already has one, doesn't she?

WhatsApp was at one point charging for its service a very small sum (like 1 EUR) and was ad free. Then they were bought for 14 billion...

Signal is gratis and ad-free and so is Telegram AFAIK.

Your line of argumentation that the advertising industry is a blessing for the poor is simply embarrassing. They're taking advantage of the ignorance of the majority.

You also keep repeating that people are exchanging their attention for products when that's clearly false. They are exchanging potentially damaging personal information which is stored forever and that can be given away to anyone. That's a very crappy deal, but most people are clueless about what's happening.

Any financial interests related to the ad industry that you'd like to disclose? For someone that hates ads you seem to be their biggest defender.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com