|
|
|
|
|
by krapp
3103 days ago
|
|
It's not the public's concern to promote alternative revenue models on behalf of businesses in return for blocking their ads - it's those business' concern to convince people to pay for their content. They have every right to try to make money on the web, but they're trying to do so on a platform which was designed to be stateless, and which gives users arbitrary power to filter or block content and alter responses. The only reason ads on the web worked at all was that browser technology and ad blockers hadn't yet matured, and people weren't aware that blocking ads was possible. Businesses thought the web would behave like old media, only cheaper, but that's not really the nature of it. |
|
I completely agree. What I'm was pushing back at is the blanket "ad revenue model is bad and ruining the net" espoused by my parent, as opposed to the more nuanced view presented by the article and their parent. And this is an arms race: the only reason adblocking works now is that it's relatively easy to recognize what payloads are ads and which are content. Once it's more feasible for sites to load ads "natively" mixed with their own content, that will become more widespread and harder to block.
It is the public's/individual's concern to support businesses that are providing a service they provide balanced with them doing so in a way that they agree with, and also to recognize where they're receiving value whether or not they're paying for it. If people aren't willing to support subscriptions or other revenue models, they're going to get ads or nothing, either because the content is going to be paywalled or the content providers are going to be out of business. There are those that complain about paywalls, and others that complain about ads.