Can We Finally Kill Advertisement?

As far as I know micro-payments is not a solved problem yet.

> So why can’t YouTube ask me to Pay to not have to see ads? In my experience the amount that they would have to charge me for such a premium feature would be ridiculously low – meaning they could make ridiculous money by only charging me a modest fee. Hell charge me a lot, time is money and you have no idea how much my time is worth.

I would love to pay for content. I'd love to pay to have ad-free content. Let's use The Atlantic as an example. I never read the whole thing. I only read the occasional article that appears in Longform or HN.

Should I pay per article? How much? 0.05 USD? 0.25 USD?

Or should I pay for an online subscription? That would possibly encourage me to read more of the product, but might put me off actually getting an online sub. Especially if I'd want to sub to very many newspapers.

Maybe they shouldn't have ads or micro-payments. Perhaps once a year they can have a fund-raising drive; HUGE banners with photos of James Bennet asking for funding?

But, whatever they do they now have a more complicated mix of revenue streams - free users; ad-supported users; micropayment users; online subs; IRL subs. That's a complex mix of numbers to present to advertisers. I know you're trying to get away from ads, but that's a big ask.

Can we finally kill blogs like this?

Any one and everyone is free to do as he or she likes, use adverts on their own site or not. Tim Moody should start his own video service sans any adverts.

What does he propose, a legislation or a movement to stop sites from using ads?