That's between you and HN and has nothing to do with my consumption of your comment.
> Ads were tried, and it's been an absolute fucking disaster.
No one likes ads, but expecting free content is silly.
That's between you and HN and has nothing to do with my consumption of your comment.
> Ads were tried, and it's been an absolute fucking disaster.
No one likes ads, but expecting free content is silly.
I'd pay a monthly fee for unmolested search results. I pay for Youtube Premium. I only watch ad-free content that I pay for.
I don't want the content for free - the free stuff is usually worse in quality anyway. I just want to be left alone by advertisers. I don't need what they are selling and the reduce my ability to think. The sheer amount of noise they add to the world makes them a problem.
Anyone using an adblocker is expecting free content.
Advertisements directly lower the quality of any content I'm consuming and I am expecting high quality content.
If someone wants to turn a profit on their site, that's fine. Do I need to accept whatever they want to serve me when I visit their page? No. Do I need to buy a product from their store if it's not something I'm interested in, even though the payment may go to helping their hosting costs? No.
I would say no, and I think websites are not different from media I listed above. If they make or don't make enough money it's not my business. I am free to consume their freely distributed products as I like.
I feel like there are some IRC channels that owe me some dividends.
Also, a lot of that content still exists but it is hidden behind the SEO garbage.
If I were to ever buy an Android phone (I wouldn’t because Google). It would be a Google device.
I also pay more for an AppleTV than a Roku because half of the Roku screen and the hard coded buttons on the remote are ads.
It's not always possible to buy out of advertising. One of my fave sites anandtech.com has (I guess relatively reasonable) ads, and I can't subscribe or whatever to get rid of them.
I'm also generally OK with Adwords v1.0 ads, which had virtually no chance of autoplaying a super loud video, running malware on my machine, breaking the layout of a page as I'm trying to click on something, or masquerading as genuine content.
Ad blockers respond to the fact that users have very little ability to control their ad experiences, even in ways we probably think are appropriate like buying out of them. What you're implying here (ads vs. free content) is a false dichotomy.
ads vs. free content is indeed a very false dichotomy.
Oh the irony! Likewise, the agreement between the content company and the ad company has nothing to do with my consumption of the content. The content company agrees to show ads for the ad company. The ad company agrees to make ads for the content company to show and pay them to show the ads. I make no agreement with either. I download the content and choose not to download the ad. It’s my bandwidth.
The privacy invasion that accompanies web ads leads me to treat them as malware and prevent their execution on my devices. I don't care about non-personalized ads (e.g. the 1P-hosted display ads on Ravelry).
Going without is better than ad funded. The goal of me running ad blockers is not just to make my life nicer but to make ad funded shit (i.e. most of the current internet) unviable.
Paywall away! If it’s good enough for the money, I’ll always pay for it.