[aninhumer]

>Their conspicuous absence seems to indicate something is amiss with this analysis.

As I said, these services exist, they're just not very prominent.

That doesn't mean they're not valuable, it just means people don't think they're valuable, and I'm not certain that's a rational decision.

I think if you asked people whether they'd pay say £10 extra on a £300 appliance to be reasonably sure it doesn't have a hugely annoying design flaw, a lot of people would pay.

But if you ask them to pay £10/month for access to a website that gives them that kind of information (even if they can cancel it after one month), they feel like it's a waste of money.

>if all the free, evil ad-sponsored content on the internet is of such "low quality"

I'm not saying the content is low quality, I'm saying the advertising itself is a low quality form of product information.