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