[kerkeslager]

> Thats just how the internet work. Content must be paid for somehow.

Not true. Some (most?) of the best content on the internet is there completely for free, because people believe in it and put it out there out of their own pocket.

The internet is worse, because of the content that is paid for by the methods you describe, than the internet of the 90s when content was there by the methods I just described.

I do think there's some value in paying artists and writers for their work, with, you know, money, because those people have to eat too. But I refuse to buy into this narrative where "I pay you for content and you give me content" (a consensual transaction) is the same as "I request content from you and you pretend to give it to me for free while secretly violating my privacy, stealing my attention, and otherwise screwing me without my consent". These are not the same thing.

This is not "just how the internet works", it's how a few people have decided they want the internet to work because it's profitable to them, and we don't have to put up with it.

[brownbat]

> The internet is worse, because of the content that is paid for by the methods you describe, than the internet of the 90s...

Yeah, when people comment that online content must be subsidized, I always find it a little ironic. They're contributing information and analysis to a discussion. Who's paying the subscription fee?

How could such a lifestyle, where they give away their mental energy for free, possibly be sustainable?

The frequent rebuttal of "but my comments are low quality and barely worth anyone's time!" is fun too.