Hacker News Reader

I think that the balance has swung so far due to how obnoxious and callous the adtech industry has become, that right now many people (including me) would consider it acceptable "collateral damage" if a bunch of decent sites would become unviable and shut down. In many areas is an over-abundandance of content with scarce attention, so even if majority of the providers shut down, there would still be "enough".

And also IMHO the business has changed over the 20 years you mention - back then, sufficient compute power and bandwidth to run a site were meaningful and more users directly required more expenses; but right now the hosting costs are trivial (e.g. I'm involved in a non-monetized project with a few million views/month / 100k MAU running off of a single small VM that can get hosted for free) and the primary expense is your time - so if you want to make some content and spend time on that, you don't need to monetize it; if you're willing to spend an evening or two, then paying a few dollars for a domain name won't be an obstacle; and if in some community there is no one who wants to put in their time if there's no money in it, well, then there's no big loss if that community doesn't have that site, as apparently no one cares.

I get that ads bring in money, but I think that every other unethical thing does as well, like underpaying people for their labor. I'm sure that there are a myriad of grey cases, where yes, the worker are exploited, but somehow the good is greater than that - and I do honestly mean this, I don't think the world is black and white. I detest ads however, and if I could wish them out of existence, they would already be gone. And I honestly feel that I don't mind anything that goes with it - things existed before, and will so after.

Fully agree. I run such a site too.

For an individual, an informational website like that has little value which is why donations or payments do not work. But some communities are so large that the total value that the sites provide is significant. Ads are the best tool to capture this value.

Without ads, there'd be much fewer sites for gaming communities because hosting and maintaining them for free is too expensive.

> Yes, I hear the comments saying “maybe they shouldn’t exist if they can’t monetize without ads”, but I’m not sure I agree. There are many that just wouldn’t survive with donations alone, and a subscription model may not make sense.

Selfishly, it could be seen as good for those of us who block ads, that they exist. Let other folks “pay” for the services I enjoy.

And I do think there’s a real gap below what I’ll actually get the credit card out for, and the services I use. Some things are just nice to have but not really worth performing a transaction over. Various one-off informational sites, video game wikis especially. Dark souls would have been kind of a pain without fextralife!

But, ads came pretty early on the internet. And one of the annoying things about them is that the non-ad-funded didn’t fully form. Who knows what business model would be available if ads hadn’t sucked up all the oxygen?

Maybe it is impossible that an ecosystem to pay for your Animal Crossing site could have grown. But we’ll probably never know.

Suppose web ads were banned tomorrow. How would sites adapt?

Many sites will shut down. A few sites would probably go Wikipedia style and ask for donations, run by the generosity of a few.

But I think the vast majority of remaining sites will become paid walled gardens, kind of like what we have with TV these days. I don't think this is a better web.

Any dramatic change like banning ads in a day is destined to cause waves. I’m more interested in whether we’d end up in a better place a couple years out.

I can't think of a benefit that would outweigh the balkanization of the Internet.

> In 2004, I started a small website on the side that had no business value at all. It was just a small community of video game fans (specifically Animal Crossing), and pretty quickly, the costs outgrew what I was willing to afford on my own.

> So I opened up donations. Unfortunately that didn’t get me very far

A site that has to rely on ads to survive doesn't have a viable business model, or in your case interesting enough/in demand enough content.

It's as simple as that.

Ads are largely a false economy anyway.

It is viable. Just not in a way that you accept.

No. If it had a viable business model it wouldn't need to turn to advertising to cover costs.