> The primary content no user wants to see any every user agent would filter out is ads.
Not that you're wrong, but: that's the fucking point!
Advertising delenda est.
Not that you're wrong, but: that's the fucking point!
Advertising delenda est.
You can do that?
Of course they conveniently only bundle these features so they can pretend it’s what customers want—hell downloading and playing when the screen is off should be a part of youtube. Just another step in the long saga of companies intentionally crippling their own services to bilk customers.
You pay for cable. Paying customers are a better audience for ads than deadbeats.
Facebook's purpose of existence is to make money.
Do you have a point? This reads like an unfinished thought.
"mental short circuit" better describes your argument that jumps from "it's possible to both show ads and charge user fees" to "they always will".
How long until those ads crop back up anyway? Instagram should give us some idea on how sponsored content might look in such a system. According to some random site, the average price for a "sponsored" instagram post is $300. You think your friends are above showing you an ad when real money is on the line? Maybe they won't be making that kind of money with very few followers, but when Pizzahut asks you to post an ad in exchange for a free pizza, I think you'll see plenty of takers. Now, granted, at least the people being paid are your friends, instead of Zuck.
And for the small group of people it seems to me that it should be easily self correcting by normal social cues since there’s no network effect to offset it.