The problem is, as was mentioned above by someone, all content has to be paid for. If there were no ads we wouldn’t have had TV and radio for the past few decades. 90% of the internet would disappear, and the only stuff left would be paywalled - i.e. only the rich could use the web.
I’m sure you try to avoid ads - I do too, they suck. But don’t pretend you don’t use a lot of websites that are not paid for with ads.
Also, you're currently using a very large non-paywalled site with no ads.
So, no, ads are not needed to have a nice internet available to all.
>There was very little content back then.
The newsgroups were absolutely huge in 1992: if you spend all day every day reading newsgroups, you could keep up with less than 1% of it. The same could be said of Internet Relay Chat and probably also of mailing lists (though I didn't subscribe to enough mailing lists to say that with 100% confidence).
Just because you never had access to it in 1992 does not mean that it is irrelevant to the topic of our conversation. AOL users had limited access to the Internet in 1992. They could send email for example I think to non-AOL users over the Internet, and 1992 I think is the year that they gain access to the newsgroups (including famously the ability to post to the newsgroups). But if in 1992 all you knew was Compuserv and AOL, you didn't know the Internet.
And again, one of the few rules of the internet (imposed again by the US government, which was footing the bill) was no commercial use. So for example there was a newsgroup called ba.jobs (the "ba" stood for "bay area") where employers could advertise job openings and employees could make posts announcing their availability for a job. But contractors (i.e., 1099 workers as opposed to W2 workers) were prohibited from making such a post because that was considered too commercial (in that an individual contractor is a lot like a small business and for such a contractor to use the internet to announce his availability was too much like a small business posting an ad).
>I didn’t have access to the Internet in my home in 1992, and the rest of the world didn’t either.
In 1992, most users of the internet got their access from their employer or their school of higher education. You could've bought access for $20 a month in 1992, its just that the Internet was not being advertised, so you didn't know about it. (Also, if you were living in a rural area, you might've had to pay your telephone company long-distant charges for every minute you were connected.)
Actually, it is not just that the internet was not being advertised, the people running it actively discouraged journalists from writing about it because there was a senator named William Proxmire who was good at getting the press to repeat his accusations of governmental wasteful spending, and the internet was an easy target for Proxmire: there were for example academics of every department using the newsgroups to discuss ideas, and Proxmire could say (truthfully, but misleadingly) that the US government was spending taxpayer money so that professors could discuss <pick the most ridiculous things academics might discuss>. (Here's an example of a journalist losing his access to the internet in 1984 in part because he wouldn't stop writing about the internet (then called ARPANET): https://www.stormtiger.org/bob/humor/pournell/story.html)
So you see there was an availability bias at play in which advertising is loud and designed to get attention (of course) and it tends to drown out information that is not part of the advertising-dependent information-ecosystem. (And again, the people in charge of the infrastructure of the internet pre-1993 were even actively striving to avoid any publicity.) Particularly, hardly anyone knows nowadays that many millions of users were using the completely-noncommercial internet of 1969 - 1992. People tend to think that the internet was created in 1993 or that advertising-dependent companies were essential to its creation.
Just for reference, I was there too. I started with a shiny 300 baud modem. To compare the old days to today and say they’re even comparable in terms of information, media, knowledge, access, gaming, entertainment … it’s not even close.
Could you clarify whether you had direct access to the internet (the newsgroups, email, ftp sites, web sites, not mediated by AOL or Compuserv) before mid-1993? Also, if yes, how many hours did you spend on it? I ask because I would be surprised to learn that it is possible for someone with your opinions to have had extensive experience with the internet pre-1993 (and I go looking for surprises).
It was a really fun time. But the breadth of what we have now more than dwarfs what existed then. It’s not surprising - that was 30 years ago. I don’t see any way to get from there to here without a ton of money being spent. Some of it was spent by governments and individuals, but I’m guessing the bulk was by companies. Economic realities require those companies to get something for their investments - they’re not charities. Advertising is the major vehicle for that investment. I’ll bet we’d find radio and TV followed a similar historical trajectory.
I use uBlock and avoid ads because they’re irritating (and I feel like a hypocrit for doing it). I hate going to recipe sites for all the garbage you have to wade through to get to the recipe. So I get it. The web, at current scale, doesn’t and can’t exist outside of economic realities. Micro transactions might have been the solution but it wasn’t. Kagi has a great model (happy customer here), but everyone can’t afford to subscribe to everything.
Do you think I'm outright telling falsehoods? Which part do you think is false: that the internet had many millions of users in 1992? That the internet pre-1993 was completely non-commercial with absolutely zero ads and no paywalls?
Anybody who says that deserves a prompt smack. I told you how I feel you smarmy parasitic prick.
Dude. I hope you’re just having a bad day. If this is your normal mode of discourse you should get some counseling. I say this from a place of good will advice.