yaportmax

They have a paid ad-free option in Europe. Nobody pays for it at all. Same with every company ever that does that (YouTube, Reddit - this is a tiny fraction of their customers).

Preventing them from blocking adblockers is effectively the same thing as banning ads in that it destroys revenue. Remember that that would impact all parts of the internet, even the companies without the resources of Meta. So maybe a company the scale of Meta weathers a policy like this - but many smaller advertising based businesses would not. So effectively, you would be driving even more consolidation of power in the industry and the acceleration of the decline of the open internet.

Also - no ads on marketplace? I personally do like using marketplace vs the alternative (Craigslist), and personally I would prefer that stays available for me to use (and for free).

This sounds great, but can you lay out for me how people on Facebook and Instagram are going to volunteer to get access to it for free? What are the mechanics of this?

See my response to the other guy who replied -> remove the free ad supported tier and people will not pay and the network will cease to exist.

First, regarding the idea of charging people to access websites:

This notion is a very Silicon Valley / coastal elite mentality IMO. A significant majority of people on the internet do not and will not pay for anything - largely because most people around the world just don't have the money for stuff like that.

The data on this is pretty consistent - take Netflix for example. A majority of Netflix users choose the cheaper ad supported tier, even though it is very easy and only marginally more expensive to switch to the non-ad supported tier. And this is already filtering to the subset of people who are willing and able to pay for a streaming subscription to begin with. The same case exists for Reddit -> you can pay to have ads removed, but only 1% of users do.

I see what you mean by Hacker News, but it's not a great example, since there are currently no ads and it's free. It's provided by Y Combinator, which monetizes via investing in startups (not something all internet businesses can reliably just start doing). For example - how would Reddit monetize? You cannot really expect people on Reddit all to be willing to pay to use it. And if some were - the whole value of a network is its scale -> so the drop in users would effectively kill the site. That's why there are no subscription only forums out there (at least none that I know of).

With regards to your second point of if these social media sites should even exist in the first place -> that's where you the consumer get to decide. If you don't get value from it, just don't use it. People who do get value from it -> use it. If enough people collectively decide it's not valuable, then the website becomes irrelevant (see Google+ and MySpace).

This is where I get very confused by anti ads people - show me a reliable alternative that is proven to work. Show me that people across the world, not just in San Francisco or London, can and will pay to access these websites/apps. And I'm not just talking about Meta - what about every random small website you have ever accessed that is ad supported? What about news websites like BBC? Or independent content creators who monetize via Instagram / YouTube ads? What about that wiki for that favorite video game of yours? Or that cooking blog? Don't get me wrong - I hate seeing ads as much as the next guy - but I can't really picture a realistic alternative.

Are you proposing banning advertising on Facebook? You know this will effectively destroy Facebook, Google, every free ad supported website on the internet?

Controversial but honest question: How do anti-ads people propose the free open internet monetizes itself?

This is what so many people on HN and the market are constantly missing.

Jason Kottke almost didn't found his blog in 1998, famously quoted as saying: "I thought I was too late, that no one would be interested." Needless to say, the internet was a tiny joke in 1998 compared to what it is now.

We are just barely scratching the surface of what's possible with AI, both in terms of the leading edge and in the 'torso' of the economy (the portion you're describing).

Folks from Silicon Valley working in AI-forward companies have a skewed perception of how many people have adopted this technology so far. Codex recently celebrated hitting 10 million users. This is a great milestone and all, but to put it in context, Microsoft office has a billion users. Sure, many people use Claude Code and or some other harness and the growth is staggering, but the overall scale is tiny compared to software as a whole. Costs of serving and usage are still very high, prohibitively so for many, so we aren't even close to market saturation.

And even at the leading edge, people who do work in those AI-forward companies; models are still slow, require hand holding, and produce suboptimal outcomes sometimes. Imagine the value when instead of needing to prompt it once per 30 mins, you prompt it once per day. Then once per week. Then once per month. Imagine all this running not on 3 trillion parameter models, not on 10 trillion, but 100 trillion. What kind of computer infra will be needed then? Certainly more than we have today.

Just ask Codex / Claude Code to do it for you :)