Hacker News Reader

Comment by throwaway_pdp09 | Hacker News Reader

So specifically, how should sites support themselves if such as you won't pay?

If they cant support themselves, they should find something people do want to pay for. The universe doesnt owe the website creators a revenue stream.

The people who are happy to read it do owe them a revenue stream if they want a website to continue.

To be perfectly clear I have no desire to see any ads, and I don't cos I block pretty much every last one (squid) but if there are sites that are worth reading, like from here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25157722 well, author's got to make money for the time they put in.

Advertisers can die in rotting heaps, but they exist because people make them exist. They exist because you want free stuff.

I read articles online before the advertisements came. I'll read them again after the advertisements are gone.

All I hear is "I want free stuff". I'm not saying you should bleed yourself dry for them, would a couple of pounds/dollars a month (when you have paid work) to put rent-seeking ad men out of a job and to support OSS software development be so bad; would you even notice it?

There is no indication that throwing money at companies decreases ads. We had newspapers, magazines, cable, and now Hulu and Amazon video and the NYT webpage. They'll gladly take my money and serve me ads.

If you look at the website mentioned before at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25157722, where are the ads? How long can the guy keep putting out high quality stuff without pay do you think.

And what about OSS devs who have their stuff used by you but you won't pay?

> There is no indication that throwing money at companies decreases ads

Pocket change isn't "throwing money". But the converse is true, you don't pay, ads appear. If not, where - be specific - does the money to run the site come from?

Also as someone pointed out before at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25179379 "You can pay for YouTube premium and get rid of ads" so it seems paying does indeed decrease ads. There's the evidence.

Hulu and Cable also used to be ad-free. I believe that much like Amazon Video, YouTube Premium will only be ad-free for a limited time and then the ads will start to creep in again, because while not earning any money is not sustainable, no amount of money is "enough".

Now we're talking. They need to make cash to survive but beyond that they get greedy, right? So, if agreed on that, we can now talk about blocking ads or cancelling subscriptions where they abuse the user, but perhaps still pay those people (like the linked website) who need it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com