• frog 🐸@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    1 year ago

    I can’t help but think of a comparison with print newspapers, which undoubtedly is where the idea of funding the internet through ads started. It made a certain sense: newspapers and magazines partially support themselves through adverts, so websites (particularly those with regularly updated content) could also rely on ad revenue.

    But the big difference is that with a print newspaper, the customer pays to buy the paper, and the customer also has the choice to not look at the ads. I’ve got a print newspaper subscription. All the ads are clustered together on a few specific pages, not interspersed amongst the real content, which allows me to just skip right past them.

    Ads on the internet, however, have become increasingly insidious over the years, often blocking access to the website’s real content. And the more obnoxious they are and the harder they are for people to avoid, the more likely people are to utilise adblockers, because ultimately they want to see ads on the internet about as much as I want to read the adverts page in the newspaper (apart from the personal ads, those are a good giggle). Forcing people to look at content they don’t want to look at is always going to end badly.

    I’m quite happy for the ad-based internet to die. Websites with good content and good communities don’t need revenue from adverts, because they will always have support from the communities they create. Most people aren’t averse to donating even a few {currency of choice} to help keep something they love running, especially when they know it’s not an extractive, exploitative business model.

    • wxboss@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I started delivering newspapers when I was 10 years old. The problem I inevitably ran into was that certain people didn’t want to pay for the product and I was out the money I had to pay to initially buy the newspaper for them.

      When customers refused to pay for their subscription, I stopped delivering their newspaper.

      While nobody wants an Internet behind a paywall, there does need to be a certain equilibrium between content and services while maintaining the ability to fund and perpetuate them.

      But, I agree that the whole modern ad and marketing system is completely rotten.

      • gk99@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        The equilibrium would be fine if they never made the mistake of annoying their users. I got tired of pop-ups, animated desktop stripper ads, random loud audio, drive-by malware and fake download buttons, and most recently, interrupting my videos and games to show me 30 second ads. It’s that kind of overzealous creep the led to this problem on their end.

        • Admetus@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Ha! You just reminded me of that random girl that would start dancing at the bottom of your browser, but that’s pretty dated now. Unless they’re still there?!

          • MaggiWuerze@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            You could even install that on your computer, then she would dance all day! Not that I would ever do that

      • snowbell@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I would rather pay for the services I use if they don’t charge much more than they make off of us in ads, and remove ads entirely. Then advertisers could not control what content I can see. It also adds another barrier between people and the services, look at what happens when a game goes free to play. The quality of the playerbase drops. Trolls might think twice if being banned means they have to pay for a new account.