Hacker News Reader

This example is comparing apples to oranges.

We’re already paying for cable, we just watch ads because because there’s only one or two cable companies in town and they both show ads. If we could pay more to show no ads we would but it’s not an option. Netflix was letting us live the dream before every content producer decided to build their own streaming competitor, crippling their catalogue.

If you’re donating to GP skip their ads.

View on HN

You could argue that you're stealing their extra revenue though.

The "problem" (I'm in favor of skipping ads) is that a business has setup a way to make money based on some theoretical consumer model, and they would prefer if the consumer behaves like their model. However when consumers are easily able to control the product they will avoid anything that is unpleasant and only consume the thing that they actually want.

As long as you’re paying more than they’re making in ads per person I think it’s fine but there’s nothing saying you can’t consume ads as well. Ideally the producer sets the donation price and provides a way to disable ads if you’re donating.

Extra revenue can come from higher pledges and merch but isn’t guaranteed.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com