[ucaetano]

> Nah, that's not what OP's talking about. OP's talking about services we use on smartphones mostly - WhatsApp, Google Maps.

No, I'm talking about the entire ad-funded internet. Including, for example, the very Guardian article we're discussing.

So yep, you're suggesting that tszyn's mom should not access content she can't pay for directly.

You forget that most people isn't as rich as you or most HN readers.

[hueving]

>So yep, you're suggesting that tszyn's mom should not access content she can't pay for directly.

You vastly underestimate how much content is created for free. Have you heard of Wikipedia? Do you realize how many people do not choose to monetize their creations?

>You forget that most people isn't as rich as you or most HN readers.

This problem was solved before the internet with libraries. If you can't afford a newspaper article you get it from the library. The same could be accomplished with an online library with daily limited access or subsidized unlimited access for the poor.

Poor people are not good for showing ads to anyway. As ad networks get more and more invasive they will be able to discriminate and refuse to pay the guardian for a view from your mom because there is no expected value there.

[_jgvg]

> You vastly underestimate how much content is created for free. Have you heard of Wikipedia?

Oh, yes, been an editor there for the past 10 years.

Now what % of the content on the internet do you think is created and delivered in a completely ad-free paywall-free way?