Hacker News Reader

A more generous interpretation is "no ads allowed" means the platform is not funded by advertising, but by public dollars. That way the system design does not become so maliciously driven by engagement/addiction metrics

View on HN

Then it gets taken over by spammers.

Advertising is literally spam:

>Spam: irrelevant or inappropriate messages sent on the internet to a large number of recipients.

Social media and the internet is already overrun with spam anyway so its a null point

The roads used to be full of spammers, but governments started banning stuff like prostitution and street peddling to reduce it. And the difference between government and a social media platform is that the government will go to your home and fine you dollars or put you behind bars if you run a professional spamming agency. So I think a government run option would have way less spam in the long run, but almost surely less freedom as well which might not be what people want either. We already see people getting arrested for relatively minor comments they post on social media in UK.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com